Talk:SAT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:SAT Reasoning Test)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 23, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
April 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
          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)

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)
Since the source links above were posted in September 2014, I've found other sources about the SAT in book chapters and review articles, and I wonder if any of the several other editors who are active here have been reading any of the sources and can suggest good sources for an update and improvement of this article. I've been involved in the recent promotion of the English language article here on Wikipedia to good article status, and one helpful part of the process of article improvement for that article was looking up authoritative sources and having multiple editors looking at those sources as the article editing proceeded. This article here could be a lot better if it cited and used better sources. Who would like to join in on improving this article to good article status? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:31, 20 April 2015 (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)

The article in Slate points to some good sources, and it would be helpful for further edits to this article here on Wikipedia to read the Slate article and check its sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (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)

Somebody who studied intelligence/developmental psychology, please fix awful race section[edit]

A lot of people I'm sure, high schools students and parents, read this article. Therefore a section that presents a single, rather uncommon, opinion as the main explanation for the testing gap needs to go. Completely absent are the decades of accumulated science on intelligence that shed light on this issue, and the corresponding mainstream opinion in both the scientific and testing communities.

Signed, 174.99.73.54 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD and removed the section. The idea of racial bias deserves to be covered in this article, but I agree that the section is problematic and should be entirely rewritten. 107.6.114.110 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I've readded it. This article is about educational testing not IQ testing, so literature on intelligence or psychology is rather irrelevant. Also I think you are wrong in your idea about which views are common and uncommon. If you have better sources, please suggest them and we will add them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The section is indeed terrible and misrepresents sources. It's a fallacy to think that there is some deep difference between IQ and achievement tests. The SAT correlates with IQ tests like two IQ tests correlate with each other. From a psychometric perspective, the SAT is just another IQ test, measuring g plus some other abilities.
The article currently claims that "questions that are labeled as difficult on the SAT tend to be more correctly answered by black students whereas white students tend to answer them incorrectly." This is a misrepresentation of a study that found that the black-white gap was smaller on certain difficult items than on certain easy items in a particular year. IIRC, someone from the College Board responded to this, pointing out that this is just random fluctuation and data from other years show an opposite pattern.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Jencks 1998 describes very well why it is a problem to assume or suggest that the SAT is an intelligence test, for several reasons. He doesn't even go into the question of G. I removed a bunch of statements that were poorly written or poorly sourced, ubt I left that particular statement about difficulty of questions because the source looks reliable and I didnt have a chance to check whether it supports the statement. If you have the source and it doesnt support the fact then please remove it. However don't remove it if your doubt is not based on a reliable source. Also since I completely rewrote the section (albeit in a short time and somewhat improvisationally) pleaee be specific about whether you are referring to the version criticized by the OP or mine.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The current source (Crain 2003) for the question difficulty sentence is available here. The writing of this part of the paragraph really needs to be improved; it doesn't make it clear that the results are supported only for verbal questions and refer to students of similar overall ability. I think a better source is Jaschik (2010) already linked in the article (available here). It cites two studies: Freedle from 2003, to which the Crain article refers, and Santelices/Wilson from 2010, which found similar results in a study using different years of data. Unfortunately neither study is readily accessible. The article should also include mention that the College Board and ETS have disputed the results of both studies (for example: here and the Jaschik article). Erjwiki (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I should be able to use my friendly local academic library and the Wikipedia Library resources to dive deeper into the sources on the SAT. (Indeed, I already have, and I am still reading and digesting the sources.) This is one of the most disputed issues surrounding the SAT, so sourcing the section correctly, just like sourcing the whole article correctly, should help a lot to improve the article. I'll keep an eye on the latest edits and continue reading the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender[edit]

What about transgenders - transgenders(unknown gender) , transgenders(now female) and transgenders(now male)  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.65.175 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source about this issue? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This must be a joke by the anonymous poster. What does assessment of scholastic achievement have to do with gender or transgenders? One either knows the material or one doesn't. — QuicksilverT @ 17:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Gathering sources for article improvements to B-class, high-importance article[edit]

I'll be reviewing the previous peer reviews of this article from years ago (linked to from this article talk page) and the (failed) featured article nomination for this article to get a sense of what improvements to the article were most desired by previous reviewers, based on possibly much earlier states of the article. I've enjoyed updating IQ classification and (with the help of other editors) English language to good article status, so I'm reasonably familiar with the current good article criteria. I would like to help this article reach good article status, and I hope other editors here will join in on checking sources, which is always one of the crucial steps in improving article quality. Better sources make better articles. Below I'll list a variety of sources that can serve as background reading while we find the best sources for new edits to article text and for guiding restructuring the article's organization and emphasis. Feel free to comment here with sources that you find particularly helpful that fit the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline.

at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]

National Test-Takers’ SAT Scores, 2009-2013]

I'll be adding some other sources during further updates to this talk page section. Feel free to add in others. Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)