Talk:SAT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:SAT Reasoning Test)
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg SAT is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for SAT:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Write a better lead
  • Expand : Add an international section, improve the biases and criticism sections.

Added content[edit]

I added some more content. Stuff someone should add soon:

  • links to more statistics
  • sample questions
  • comparision with PSAT, etc

Also, I feel there should be a rebuttal of some of the criticism (for example, IIRC, Asians score slightly higher than whites on the test) but I'm unsure how to do this in a NPOV style.

I keep switching the "five column grid" phrase in the SAT Reasoning Test section to "four column grid," because that's what actually is. I have proof: [[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/prep_one/spr/prac/prac01.html SAT Student-Produced Responses]] Whoever is switching it back should stop.

Hm. Sorry, for some reason I kept thinking you were changing the one referring to the usual five-column grid. Hope you weren't discouraged or anything. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'k, I may have goofed on that one. Like the posters say, given the %&^#@ that's ongoing in that country it's too hard to tell. Kwantus 14:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

What are the SAT subject tests (SAT II) for?

What is a perfect score on the SAT I? \




Hi I'm new here... I have an idea though. Maybe the bit about the Asians scoring slightly higher than white should be taken off of here. That's ethnocentrism/prejudice. Thanks!

Oh and sorry I don't have any info on the SAT s but I will take them soon

New SAT[edit]

OK, since the New SAT has officially been administered for the first time (I took it yesterday, yay!), I think it's time to update the information to reflect this as the primary area of information (currently, it pretty much sums up the old version and then briefly comments on the new one). Any objections?--User:naryathegreat(t) 20:45, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I support this move. We shouldn't remove info on the old version, though; just add more on the new one. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English SATs[edit]

My mistake, there is some information on the disambiguation page. Still, maybe it should be more prominent?

I don't even see a disambiguation page? Can someone re-add this ASAP.

2006 SAT Scoring error[edit]

I added the news about the error under the history section, but it could probably be added to a different part, or maybe be made into a new section. I'm not sure if I put it in the best place. If anyone wants to do anything about it, here's a news article with some of the information:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002860011_satfallout12.html

Incorrect?[edit]

"The "old" SAT had an incredibly high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. If one makes the reasonable assumption that all of the very brightest people in that U.S. age group, which numbers 3 million, took the test, then a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand., equivalent to the 99.9997 percentile. [3]"

The source that is cited here refers to the SAT before what is now know known as the "old" SAT...the one that was replaced in 1995. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to affirm about either the pre- or post-1995 test the claim that "a score above 1580 has a rarity of about one in 400 thousand." Deleted the section.

I don't see how this claim (7 in a million to get 1580) could be possibly be correct. A friend took it in 1977 and got 1590. I met or heard of several people with similar or better. To me this speaks of 1 in 900 or 1 in 5000, not 1 in 100,000. Otherwise where did all the super smart people of these generations come from? It wasn't just some pathetic coterie of 7 people, but thousands and tens of thousands. (The friend is a professor of math at a top place, but as I said, there are thousands and tens of thousands.)

University of California's conversion chart[edit]

This conversion chart either has changed or is flawed. They do not use the composite for the ACT instead, "[T]he University multiplies the sum of your converted math, reading and science scores by two-thirds, then adds the converted English/writing score." the article is misleading. I would use the one by The Princeton Review found here [1]. Zginder 2008-04-17T22:10Z (UTC)

ETS[edit]

I think the first few lines are misleading or at best confusing. My understanding is the College Board now owns the test and therefore helps shape it, but ETS still writes the tests as well as administering it. That's what they do---develop "fair" standardized tests. The college board never "took over" the test from ETS. The universities who were members of the College Board (and others followed the example) began adopting the SAT as an admission test before ETS came into being. If anything, ETS took the test over from the College Board after it was created. http://www.ets.org/about/who/ http://about.collegeboard.org/history I'm writing an informational college paper over the test, BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigone75 (talkcontribs) 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Antigone75 is correct. The SAT has always been owned by the College Board; ownership was never transferred to ETS. The ETS was formed in 1947, 21 years after the SAT was first administered, to handle the ever-increasing volume of standardized tests including the SAT. According to ets.org, "ETS develops and administers the SAT®, the Advanced Placement Program® Exams and other programs on behalf of the College Board. The College Board sponsors these testing programs and decides how they will be constructed, administered and used." So the second paragraph has incorrect information and is inconsistent with the entry for ETS. Erjwiki (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Along these lines of the above, unless there are objections, I'd like to change the second paragraph to read: "The SAT is owned and published by the College Board, a private, nonprofit organization in the United States. It is developed and administered on behalf of the College Board by the Educational Testing Service. (Reference will be: "Frequently Asked Questions About ETS". ETS. Retrieved 2014-06-06. ) The test is intended to assess a student's readiness for college." Note that the reference given in the current version of this paragraph is no longer relevant. Erjwiki (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

References no longer have good links[edit]

Please could somebody help improve and update the following references (or the URL's within them, they no longer work): 28. "2010 SAT Trends". The College Board. 2010. and 38. "Chapter 12: Improving Paragraphs". The Official SAT Study Guide (Second ed.). The College Board. 2009. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-87447-852-5

the first (28) I cannot find because the URL doesn't work, nor can I find the other (38) anywhere.

Any help would be appreciated, I need these references for an article and I can't trace how the original wiki-editor found them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.69.57 (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Searching the College Board website for the SAT national report will find some of those links; others were copyright violations and should never have been posted here in the first place. Almost any local public high school counseling office will have the printed materials about the SAT at hand. For more background, see the Intelligence Citations bibliography here on Wikipedia. Good luck with your article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of the test and article title[edit]

Recently (since Google last cached them) most of the references to "SAT Reasoning Test" on collegeboard.org seem to have been changed simply to "SAT Test". Should this be reflected in the article and/or the title of the article? -- Erjwiki (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most of the College Board pages just call it "SAT." I will be bold and do an article rename based on the latest authoritative source, as soon as I have checked what that will do to redirect pages. Thanks for your attention to detail. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I requested a page move to the best new name for the article (which is now a redirect) as a noncontroversial technical move. Thanks for catching this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
As all of you can see, the article name has been changed to the new name of the test. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


SAT (test)SAT – Currently, SAT redirects here. But we usually have primary topic articles at the base name, not at a parenthetically disambiguated name. I have been unsuccessful at figuring out what happened its history. The reeeeally important U.S. test is most likely the primary topic (see Google Books and Google News (not case-sensitive)), but if not, the article still needs to move. There are other (far less important) tests abbreviated as SAT(s), which means the parenthetical disambiguator here is not going to fly (see WP:PDAB). I'd recommend a seemingly policy-okay move to The SAT, but again, only if we consensusize that this is not the primary topic. I think it is, though. To sum up: when reliable sources use SAT, they usually mean this test. So we should move it to SAT. Red Slash 21:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. --В²C 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What other tests do you have in mind? What do the sources say about the full names and abbreviated names of each of those? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the tests listed at Category:Standardized tests in the United States have "test" or the like in their name, and most of the ones that are acronyms or initialisms, seem to have included "(test)". Rwessel (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • WeijiBaikeBianji, Rwessel, there are two points I'd like to respectfully address. The first is that it is Wikipedia practice that when we have an article about X, we never put it at X (type) and then redirect X to it. (Goose (bird) is a redirect to Goose, not the other way around.) This article does not follow that convention and that has to change in some way.
    • Second, there are other tests called the SAT, though they are relatively unimportant. The Stanford Achievement Test Series is commonly referred to as the SAT or SATs, meaning that there is more than one SAT (test) out there. Generally, consensus has shown this to be a bad thing (see Titanic (film) - note that that link does not take you to the big important movie involving Leo, but straight back to the disambiguation page, because even though one of them is way more important, we still can't put a parenthetical disambiguation device and have it be ambiguous). In other words, since there are multiple tests abbreviatable to SAT, we can't leave this article here. See also WP:PDAB. I hope this helps explain it! Red Slash 02:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as the most common usage of "SAT" worldwide is to refer to this article's topic. Other uses can be covered through disambiguation, etc, as per routine. -- Scray (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The redirect indicates that this is the primary topic of the term, so the term should be at the shorter title per WP:CONCISE. bd2412 T 15:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer of preceding move per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC after reviewing sources and other preexisting articles and redirects. The College Board has not made this issue easy by changing the name of the SAT more than once since Wikipedia was founded, but now that there is a new official name, I agree that the name of this article should be simply SAT. I appreciate the other editors who have joined the discussion to point to the Wikipedia policy statement on disambiguation pages versus article names. I just went to fix the article about the Stanford Achievement Test (which still needs a lot more work) to further clarify the correct terminology per the sources. I support the move of this article to the test's official name as the primary topic of the three-capital-letter designation "SAT" in worldwide English. Thanks for your attention to detail. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per primary topic. Calidum Talk To Me 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Section on "1980 test and associated changes"[edit]

This paragraph (about the "strivers" project) has no sources and I can't seem to verify any of it. Some quick research shows that there was in fact a "strivers" program, which the Wall Street Journal reported on August 31, 1999, several years after this paragraph suggests. The origins of the program seem to date to the early 1990s. For example, see: here, here, and here. Should this paragraph be deleted? Erjwiki (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The text in the section above was added more than 6 years ago, so a "citation needed" at this point doesn't seem useful. Unless there are objections, I'm going to delete this subsection within the next few days.Erjwiki (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How crucial is test prep to this article? What do reliable sources say?[edit]

I see a lot of advertising claims about the effectiveness of test prep in the article that are not backed up by reliable sources. Let's discuss this. Who has scholarly sources to suggest on this topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Not backed up by reliable sources"? Reliable sources are not, nor have they ever been limited to scholarly articles. Rather than call these people liars, a neutral point of view must be preserved on the page by presenting the various different viewpoints. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources --TDJankins (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
While a Preparation section is useful in general, the recent additions of specific test prep claims (in this article, and in others like GMAT ) is problematic to me. First, I don't know of any third-party reliable sources that have examined specific test prep claims, and thus mentioning specific claims from companies seems more like advertising than fact. Second, including these specific claims seems like a slippery slope where sooner or later every testing company has a basis for inclusion if they publish a score increase claim. Given that it can be extremely difficult to determine what's legitimate, the better approach seems to be having a broad overview of the study options (course, tutor, etc) instead of a rundown of specific companies or claims. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In regards to whether a citation is being used to evidence test prep effectiveness or being used for advertising, all one need do to discern that is read the passage in question. You "don't know of any third-party reliable sources that have examined specific test prep claims." Do you know of any third parties that have examined all of the claims made by the test owning company? Should we have to have every single claim made by the test owning company examined by third party sources in order for them to be included on the page? Again, I don't think it's appropriate to call any of these people liars. The appropriate thing to do is to represent each of the major varying viewpoints in order to preserve the page's neutral point of view.--TDJankins (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a topic I have read much about. Actually, there is considerably research evidence on the (lack of) test-prep effectiveness, and I know research psychologists who conduct some of that research and summarize the overall research in authoritative textbooks and practitioner handbooks for psychologists and college admission officers. So the claims about test prep in the article caught my eye, because by the Wikipedia verifiability policy, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, and by the content guidelines on reliable sources claims by people about themselves come into Wikipedia only if the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Without a doubt, the overall industry of test preparation is a topic that fits the main topic of this article. And without a doubt, some statements about test-prep-as-such belong in the article as long as the statements can be sourced to reliable sources. We are still in discussion here about what due weight is on the topic of test prep when the overall article is about the SAT test, and where to look for reliable sources the phenomenon of test prep. I suggest checking the user bibliograpy I've just been updating today for some helpful sources on several topics related to this article. Thanks for joining the discussion. (P.S. Please don't refer to editing that examines a source by reading the source and then updates article text to fit what the source says and what Wikipedia policy requires "destructive editing." That's just the kind of editing that happens to any professionally edited reference book, and it violates the editor conduct guideline assume good faith to call "destructive" what another editor might reasonably deem, on the basis of reliable sources, to be constructive editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As it appears that my recent addition of the CNN article is what stirred up the repeated destructive editing, I will revert the page to the version prior to that in order for the page to maintain a neutral point of view.--TDJankins (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if test prep is exactly crucial to the article, but the effectiveness of coaching for standardized tests is certainly inextricable from the history of the SAT, from the College Board's "Effects of Coaching on Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores" (1965) to the FTC and Kaplan (1978), to today's test prep claims. I'd like to see more third-party viewpoints (not from the ETS, College Board, or test prep companies) in either this section or in the history section. Some good sources for this (to name two on somewhat different "sides") are "None of the Above", Chapter 6, David Owen, 1999, and "SAT Coaching, Bias and Causal Inference", Briggs, 2002. (The latter, a dissertation, is particularly useful for a compilation of references and studies, and can be easily found on the Internet.) Erjwiki (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind me responding to comments directed at me above, let's not make a straw man here. I never stated or "call[ed] any of these people liars." And, if an opinion were to be included, I think it helps if it comes either from a reliable source, or at least a company deemed notable. All that aside, while studies have been done about general test prep effectiveness overall, in my comment I was referring to the recent examination of specific claims by a specific company (as in, "company X increases scores by Y points") as that is what was added to this article (and others) originally. I still maintain that general commentary on test preparation is relevant to this article, but should only be a minor section. That is consistent with multiple viewpoints as well as neutrality. Cheers! Transmissionelement (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Transmissionelement. I'm not saying that you called anyone a liar, I'm saying it's not our place to speculate. And it doesn't matter anyways; when the context is "test prep companies have boasted higher results," a boast directly from a test prep company is a very reliable source.--TDJankins (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer Sheet blog[edit]

I see that some article content has been cited to the Answer Sheet column in the Washington Post, described on its own website as "The Post's new education blog."[1] That blog has been caught in spin and incomplete documentation of its factual statements by other bloggers before,[2] so I have been aware for a while, as a regular reader of that blog, that I have to fact-check anything it says very carefully. Statements by one person, an employee of a test-prep company, have been cited in the article as statements by "some experts" on the SAT, but those statements are contrary to the great bulk of better sources by more informed scholars about the SAT. It would be worthwhile here to discuss reliable sources and due weight for an article about a topic that is the subject of considerable scholarly study (and also the subject of much commercial interest) to ensure that this article upholds Wikipedia policies. I think we can do a lot better than the Answer Sheet blog for sourcing this article. What sources do other participants in the editing of this article suggest? I have a source list in user space here on Wikipedia that includes quite a few scholarly and popular sources that discuss the SAT test.

References
  1. ^ Valerie Strauss (September 14, 2009). "The Answer Sheet: What Does the SAT Test?". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 15, 2014. 
  2. ^ "The Innumeracy of Educators, or Mark Twain Was Right". 

Thanks to the editor who suggested discussing this issue on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now this is fascinating. Here we have two Wikipedians (WeijiBaikeBianji and Victor Chmara) who are essentially saying "no, no, no, someone who takes the test for a living is not an expert, I'm the expert." Next WeijiBaikeBianji's discourse went to "Washington Post? Never heard of it." Finally, he launches a completely nonsensical attack on the Washington Post based on nothing. These Wikipedians need to leave their bias at the door.--TDJankins (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You are of course mischaracterizing my argument. Perhaps there should be some nationally standardized test of reading proficiency. Part of advanced reading proficiency is source evaluation and treating factual claims differently depending on how extraordinary they are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a nonexhaustive set of links to recently published scientific journal articles and education policy articles about SAT testing in college admission. There are many other publications on this topic--the selection factor here is a link that any Wikipedian can follow to check the article text directly. I'll gradually format these bare links into references to add to the article here. I should point out that I am intentionally omitting the many research articles that can be found at the College Board website's subsection on research, but I have provided a link to that subsection by an edit to this article's External links section. There are also quite a few printed books on this topic that I have been gathering quotations from for this article and other articles. Gradually this article can become referenced to better sources more appropriate for an encyclopedia article on a higher education topic.
* [2]
* [3]
* [4]
* [5]
* [6]
* [7]
* [8]
* [9]
* [10]
* [11]
* [12]
* [13]
* [14]
* [15]
Enjoy your reading. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking the SAT many times does not make you an expert on its psychometric properties anymore than driving a car for many years makes you an auto engineer. There's a big academic literature on what the SAT measures, so citing the scatterbrained ideas of this random guy published in some blog as if it were legitimate expert opinion makes no sense in light of Wikipedia's content policies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TDJankins's edits and Victor Chmara's edits[edit]

TDJankins insists on adding to the lede the opinions of some some unknown SAT tutor as if this person, Edward Carroll, were a recognized expert on the psychometric properties of the test. The basis of his supposed expertness is that he has taken the SAT multiple times, a fact which is reported in a blog post.

Secondly, TDJankins insists on adding to the "Correlations with IQ" section claims that are either unsourced original interpretations or irrelevant.

To stop edit warring, I request TDJankins to answer the following questions and justify his edits on the basis of Wikipedia's policies:

1) There is a large peer-reviewed literature on what the SAT measures (see links in the previous section), so we would expect any expert on the test to have published such peer-reviewed research. What has Carroll published? Are his ideas mainstream or marginal in the field? What secondary sources establish that his views are so important that they should be covered in the lead section?

2) You refer to Carroll as "some experts". Can you demonstrate, using reliable sources, that Carroll is in fact several people, each of them an expert on the SAT?

3) In the "Correlations with IQ" section, why do you think it's relevant to report the g factor loadings of the various indicator tests?

4) Based on what sources do you think that .483 is "a low-end moderate correlation"? According to Cohen's widely accepted guideline, a correlation of 0.3 is moderate while 0.5 is large, so .483 is not "low-end moderate". What alternative effect size guideline are you using? In any case, the "low-end moderate" claim does not appear in the source, so it's original research and not allowed.

5) You restored the sentence about the authors not explaining how they corrected for range restriction. That's an interpretive claim and therefore original research. Correction for range restriction is a standard procedure explained in any psychometrics textbook, and the authors did not explain its details, just like they did not explain the details of the other normal statistical procedures they used.--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victor. We don't need to hide the contexts of the Frey and Detterman paper. Doing so is irresponsible. Stats are meaningless without their context. Let me remind you that this bit of trivia does not even need to be on the SAT page at all, especially given that many feel psychometrics is pseudo-science and pathological science (the process by which "people are tricked into false results by subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions"). I personally want it to stay on the page because I think it's an interesting perspective. Anyways, I'll humor your questions.

1) There is a large peer-reviewed literature on what the SAT measures (see links in the previous section), so we would expect any expert on the test to have published such peer-reviewed research. What has Carroll published? Are his ideas mainstream or marginal in the field? What secondary sources establish that his views are so important that they should be covered in the lead section?

With all due respect, what planet are you from where you think only academics are experts? And again, many don't believe psychometrics is even a legitimate science, so we probably shouldn't regard them as experts on a college admissions test. Further, I don't believe any of that literature states the SAT measures raw math or verbal abilities.

2) You refer to Carroll as "some experts". Can you demonstrate, using reliable sources, that Carroll is in fact several people, each of them an expert on the SAT?

You may have missed it, but I changed it to "Some of the SAT experts," since you appear to actually believe that there aren't any like minded experts.

3) In the "Correlations with IQ" section, why do you think it's relevant to report the g factor loadings of the various indicator tests?

Context. The SAT only had the sixth largest correlation or g loading. Why in the world would you try to hide this?

4) Based on what sources do you think that .483 is "a low-end moderate correlation"? According to Cohen's widely accepted guideline, a correlation of 0.3 is moderate while 0.5 is large, so .483 is not "low-end moderate". What alternative effect size guideline are you using? In any case, the "low-end moderate" claim does not appear in the source, so it's original research and not allowed.

The .4-.7 range is typically considered a moderate correlation. A low-end moderate correlation is a low-end moderate correlation; there's no original research there. Cohen's is the alternative guideline. It's from 1988 and the only people you ever see use it are psychometricians. It is wishful thinking and without basis. Regardless, you're right, it doesn't need to be characterized at all.

5) You restored the sentence about the authors not explaining how they corrected for range restriction. That's an interpretive claim and therefore original research. Correction for range restriction is a standard procedure explained in any psychometrics textbook, and the authors did not explain its details, just like they did not explain the details of the other normal statistical procedures they used.

"Correction" for range restriction is far from standard procedure and there are multiple ways of attempting to do it. For instance, the UC validity study made an explicit point of not using any "correction" for range restriction methods as they noted that methods of attempting to "correct" for range restriction have to depend on assumptions which cannot be directly verified such as assuming that the relationship between test scores is linear and identical across all observed and unobserved data ranges (see pg. 4 of UC and the SAT). Attempting to "correct" for range restriction always begs the question of how such a wondrous feet was accomplished. Presenting "correction for range restriction" as an ironclad thing is irresponsible. It appears that its wide use in psychometrics may be further evidence of pathological science. I personally think psychometrics has some redeeming qualities and some basis in science. However, too many liberties are taken throughout, such as here with "correction" for range restriction. If we're going to report such a thing on a Wikipedia article, it shouldn't be done in such a misleading way.

Finally, the bottom line is that all of this content is credibly sourced from the Washington Post article or the Frey and Detterman paper itself and you have no excuse to try to hide it or delete other editor's credibly sourced contributions from this page. As such, I will restore most of what was removed from the page.--TDJankins (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are people who think psychometrics is a pseudoscience, just like there are people who think that medicine is a pseudoscience, or that climatology is one, but there's no need to pay attention to such fringe views in Wikipedia, except perhaps in articles dedicated to such ideas. What the scientific view on cognitive testing is is easy to find in reliable sources. The idea that an article on the SAT, which is one of the best-known psychometric instruments, should eschew discussing psychometrics is amusing. Also, remember that your personal opinions on psychometrics are completely irrelevant here.
If you think Carroll's is a widely held view among experts, you should have no problem in providing reliable secondary sources to that effect. Proper published research is needed to establish anything about the SAT's properties because nobody can infer what it measures based on just their personal experience taking the test. "Some of the SAT experts" still implies several people, and you have not given any policy-based reasons why this one "expert's" opinion should be given a prominent place in the article (see WP:UNDUE). The reference to "raw math or verbal abilities" makes no sense, because there is no indication what a nebulous concept like "raw ability" would mean.
As to the g loading thing, no one's claiming that the SAT has a lower or higher g loading than some other test, so what is actually being hidden here? Secondly, Frey and Detterman do not report the g loading of the SAT. They report a correlation between g factor scores and SAT scores, and such a correlation is necessarily lower than a corresponding factor loading (unless the test battery is very large). Comparing factor loadings and factor score correlations is comparing apples and oranges.
It's good that we agree that there's no need to verbally describe the size of a correlation, but I'd love to see what your source is for the claim that .4-.7 is "typically considered a moderate correlation". Cohen was not a psychometrician, and his guideline is widely used across disciplines.
Not correcting for range restriction leads to an underestimation of the effect size. Not recognizing this reveals a basic ignorance of statistics. There are assumptions that go into such corrections, just like in the use of any statistical procedure. The uncertainties associated with such a procedure can be indicated by referring to the corrected correlation as an estimate, but the article cannot criticize Frey and Detterman for failing to do something unless there's a reliable source that states that (see WP:OR).
You have not attempted to justify your edits using Wikipedia's policies. Your personal opinions on what the truth of the matter is are of no consequence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Have the sources relied on in the Chabris article in Slate been used to edit this article yet?[edit]

In an online community, I encountered today a discussion among researchers on standardized tests (among other topics) mentioning some useful guides to the literature on the SAT. One of those guides, an article by Hambrick and Chabris in Slate points to some good research sources. We should check the article we are working on here to see how well the article reflects those reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

CHANGES IN 2015 SAT[edit]

Starting in 2015 more foreigners will take the SAT than americans.The new exam will look for correct english..competition is tough as foreigners know english grammar better than natives as foreigners have studied the books while natives learn english in the streets.Another new part will be combining math and english-Word problems where the answer is not just a number but HOW you did it.Youll need to write clearly about the steps you took to get that answer..Im on a team that CREATES the SAT and grades it afterwards.The top universites will offer more scholarships in 2015.Cant talk about math or history or geography only english grammar my speciality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.122.132 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)