z-logo
Premium
SELF‐REPORT PREDICTORS: A REMINDER 1
Author(s) -
McMORRIS ROBERT F.,
AMBROSINO ROBERT J.
Publication year - 1973
Publication title -
journal of educational measurement
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.917
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1745-3984
pISSN - 0022-0655
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00776.x
Subject(s) - test (biology) , psychology , reading comprehension , reading (process) , predictability , set (abstract data type) , clinical psychology , mathematics education , statistics , mathematics , computer science , paleontology , political science , law , biology , programming language
How do tests and self‐reports compare as predictors of academic performance? Do tests add to the predictability from self‐reports? College seniors in eight sections of an evaluation course were administered the Quantitative Evaluative Device, the Cooperative English Test: Reading Comprehension, the Concept Mastery Test, and two questionnaires concerning past academic performance, student‐estimated abilities, and reading habits. The criteria were composite test scores and letter grades. The best predictors were two self‐reported variables, GPA and grade in an educational psychology course, and a test variable, the QED. Multiple R s using questionnaire data for the predictors were increased slightly by adding the test scores, but on cross‐validation the r s for the two predictor sets were essentially identical. The utility of the tests, then, was not supported either by zero‐order correlations or by cross‐validated increments. Therefore an investigator is reminded at least to include self‐report measures in his set of predictors.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here