THE INTERNAL CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE GRE GENERAL TEST ACROSS HANDICAPPED AND NONHANDICAPPED POPULATIONS

This study investigated the factor structure of the GRE General Test across handicapped and nonhandicapped groups, The handicapped student groups included two groups of examinees taking timed, standard administrations and one taking an extended‐time, large‐type administration. A simple, three‐factor model, consisting of Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical item types was posed. Using the covariance matrices, this model was tested for invariance with respect to the number and intercorrelation of factors, the pattern of factor loadings, and the equality of scale units. To investigate observed discrepancies in factor structure, a higher‐order factor solution using the correlation matrices was also computed. The three common‐factor model provided a good fit in the nonhandicapped population and a moderately good fit for visually impaired students taking a standard administration. The least adequate fit was found for the visually impaired group taking the large type exam and for physically impaired students taking a standard administration. While the verbal and quantitative factors fit reasonably well in these two groups, the analytical factor fit less adequately, with the item types composing this factor–analytical reasoning and logical reasoning–behaving more as separate factors. For both groups, Analytical scores appeared to have a different meaning from those for nonhandicapped students. For visually impaired students taking the large type exam, a lower relationship between the verbal and quantitative factors was noted. This lower relationship indicates, relative to nonhandicapped students, an increased likelihood of achievement growth in one area independent of the other. This finding underscores the importance of interpreting Verbal and Quantitative scores individually rather than as part of a composite. Findings from this study should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample sizes on which results are based and because the study only provides one component of the evidence required to make summative judgments of test validity. Further evidence from predictive and item validity studies should add to the information base required for drawing policy and procedural implications about the development and the use of the General Test for handicapped examinees.