Upload
doannhi
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Administrative and Editorial Research and Development480 Meyer Road 4320 Green Ash DriveBensenville, Illinois 60106 –1617 Earth City, Missouri 63045Tel: 1.800.642.6787 Tel: 1.855.532.0787Fax: 1.866.766.8054 Fax: 1.314.739.3857email: [email protected] email: [email protected] www.ststesting.com
Interpretive Manual
High School Placement Test
CONTENTS
Alphabetical List Report and Rank-Order List Report ...................................................................................... 2–4
Normative Scores ................................................................................................................................................ 4–6
National Percentile (NP) Rank .................................................................................................................... 4
Local Percentile (LP) Rank ......................................................................................................................... 4
Grade Equivalents (GE) .............................................................................................................................. 5
Cognitive Skills Quotient (CSQ) ................................................................................................................. 5
Standard Scores (SS) ................................................................................................................................... 6
Using the Individual Results .............................................................................................................................. 6–7
General Considerations ....................................................................................................................................... 7–8
Local and National Norms .......................................................................................................................... 7–8
Questionable HSPT® Scores............................................................................................................................... 8–9
Coded Student Information ................................................................................................................................ 9–10
Group Summary Statistical Report .................................................................................................................... 11–15
Frequency Distribution ................................................................................................................................ 12–13
N-counts, Standard Score Means, and Standard Deviations ....................................................................... 13–14
National Percentiles for Selected Group Percentiles ................................................................................... 15
National Percentile Group Summary .................................................................................................................. 16
Performance Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 17–19
The Performance Profile Summary .................................................................................................................... 19
Item Analyses—Individual and Group ............................................................................................................... 20–23
Individual Item Analysis Report.................................................................................................................. 20–21
Group Item Analysis Report ........................................................................................................................ 22–23
Student Score Report .......................................................................................................................................... 24–25
This booklet is a guide for interpreting results of STS’ High School Placement Test. It contains samples and discussions of the following reports:
• HSPT® Alphabetical List Report
• HSPT® Rank-Order List Report
• HSPT® Group Summary Statistical Report
• HSPT® National Percentile Group Summary
• HSPT® Performance Profile
• HSPT® Individual Item Analysis Report
• HSPT® Group Item Analysis Report
• HSPT® Student Score Report
Detailed technical information about the reliability and validity of the test and correlations with various other standardized tests are given in STS’ High School Placement Test Technical Supplement.
Copyright © 2014, Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.Published by Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., Bensenville, Illinois 60106–1617. Printed in the United States of America.
2 2
See explanation on page 4.
GROUP I.D.
DATE:
GRADE:
SEC:
FORM:
PAGE:
CODES
COGNITIVE SKILLS
BASIC SKILLS
OPTION
COMPOSITE
WITHOUT
OPTION
()
TEST
CENTER
ELEM
SCHOOL
CHOICES
OTHER
12
312
VERBAL
QUANT
TOTAL
READING
MATH
LANGUAGE
TOTAL
SS-STANDARD SCORE
NP-NATIONAL PERCENTILE
LP-LOCAL PERCENTILE
GE-GRADE EQUIVALENT
CSQ-
COGNITIVE SKILLS QUOTIENT
34
OPTIONAL CODES
RS-RAW SCORE
ALPHA LIST BY TOTAL GROUP RUN DATE: 11/12/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL 00001 11/22/08 08 K 1
STUDENT'S NAME SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP RS NP SS NP
AGE B-DAY LP LP CSQ LP GE LP GE LP GE LP GE LP SUB LP LP
Aragonman James E00001 175 558 73 599 84 592 83 602 83 596 83 638 92 617 88 35 96 609 87
13 01/09 3415 61 79 116 72 10.2 79 10.0 78 10.4 90 10.2 87 SC 96 82
Baniels Brian M00001 173 547 70 527 59 540 67 472 35 525 60 511 54 498 50 19 19 509 56
13 08/16 34 57 50 113 54 8.1 30 8.9 54 8.7 44 8.6 41 SC 16 47
Carrillon Ethan T00001 173 581 81 613 88 610 87 623 88 578 78 569 76 597 84 27 64 599 85
14 09/28 3415 69 82 114 78 10.2 86 9.7 72 9.7 69 9.9 79 SC 56 79
Drand Rachel M00001 217 558 73 424 23 491 47 500 47 419 23 450 33 458 35 26 58 466 40
13 05/12 3450 61 15 105 35 8.6 39 7.3 22 7.8 24 7.9 26 SC 50 28
Ertellazyk JonathanM00001 183 405 18 414 21 399 17 425 21 359 10 262 3 375 11 28 70 369 11
13 02/22 3450 13 13 89 11 7.5 15 6.5 8 5.2 1 6.4 4 SC 62 6
Gonzalez AlexandrM00001 175 502 50 496 48 499 51 508 50 409 21 562 73 491 48 20 24 490 48
13 07/11 34 40 39 107 39 8.7 43 7.2 19 9.6 65 8.5 39 SC 19 38
Haynton Marie C00001 175 602 87 517 56 566 75 561 71 525 60 676 96 594 83 27 64 583 80
13 03/05 34 77 47 113 64 9.5 63 8.9 54 10.8 96 9.7 78 SC 56 73
3
Herrreral Darren F00001 215 614 89 668 96 649 94 579 76 596 83 625 91 608 86 26 58 625 90
13 03/13 3415 81 93 123 90 9.8 71 10.0 78 10.3 88 10.0 83 SC 50 87
Kleinman Daniel J00001 173 524 61 527 59 527 61 579 76 491 47 511 54 528 62 22 34 524 62
13 04/30 3426 49 50 108 50 9.8 71 8.6 43 8.7 44 9.0 53 SC 28 52
Lomerez Kaitlyn N00001 999 515 56 486 45 499 51 561 71 428 26 521 59 502 51 30 82 496 51
13 06/06 34 45 35 106 39 9.5 63 7.5 24 9.0 48 8.7 43 SC 74 41
Moarey Kacie M00001 217 614 89 386 15 499 51 602 83 491 47 579 79 563 75 30 82 538 66
13 09/26 3450 81 9 108 39 10.2 79 8.6 43 9.7 73 9.5 66 SC 74 56
Natlusek Rachel K00001 173 614 89 517 56 570 77 528 58 446 31 579 79 520 58 25 52 542 67
13 02/14 34 81 47 113 66 9.0 51 7.8 30 9.7 73 8.8 50 SC 44 57
Pleuker Lauren E00001 173 558 73 549 68 560 73 591 80 657 94 648 93 641 92 27 64 611 88
13 09/22 3436 61 57 115 61 10.0 75 10.8 93 10.5 92 10.4 92 SC 56 83
Saitnella Anthonv J00001 207 558 73 517 56 540 67 541 63 503 52 437 29 494 49 29 76 507 55
13 04/29 3499 61 47 110 54 9.2 55 8.7 47 7.6 21 8.5 40 SC 68 46
Taktedy Melanie R00001 173 637 92 549 68 606 87 636 90 536 63 588 82 594 83 34 95 594 84
13 03/23 3400 87 57 118 76 10.4 89 9.1 58 9.8 77 9.8 78 SC 94 77
Vugorska Justina 00001 137 558 73 468 39 510 56 517 53 525 60 521 59 520 58 29 76 510 57
13 09/29 3499 61 28 108 44 8.9 47 8.9 54 9.0 48 8.9 50 SC 68 47
00001
HSPT® Alphabetical List Report
3
GROUP I.D.
DATE:
GRADE:
SEC:
FORM:
PAGE:
CODES
COGNITIVE SKILLS
BASIC SKILLS
OPTION
COMPOSITE
WITHOUT
OPTION
()
TEST
CENTER
ELEM
SCHOOL
CHOICES
OTHER
12
312
VERBAL
QUANT
TOTAL
READING
MATH
LANGUAGE
TOTAL
SS-STANDARD SCORE
NP-NATIONAL PERCENTILE
LP-LOCAL PERCENTILE
GE-GRADE EQUIVALENT
CSQ-
COGNITIVE SKILLS QUOTIENT
34
OPTIONAL CODES
RS-RAW SCORE
RANK LIST ON COMP BY TOTAL GROUP RUN DATE: 11/12/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL 00001 11/22/08 08 S 1
STUDENT'S NAME SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP SS NP RS NP SS NP
AGE B-DAY LP LP CSQ LP GE LP GE LP GE LP GE LP SUB LP LP
Herrreral Darren F00001 215 614 89 668 96 649 94 579 76 596 83 625 91 608 86 26 58 625 90
13 03/13 3415 81 93 123 90 9.8 71 10.0 78 10.3 88 10.0 83 SC 50 87
Pleuker Lauren E00001 173 558 73 549 68 560 73 591 80 657 94 648 93 641 92 27 64 611 88
13 09/22 3436 61 57 115 61 10.0 75 10.8 93 10.5 92 10.4 92 SC 56 83
Aragonman James E00001 175 558 73 599 84 592 83 602 83 596 83 638 92 617 88 35 96 609 87
13 01/09 3415 61 79 116 72 10.2 79 10.0 78 10.4 90 10.2 87 SC 96 82
Carrillon Ethan T00001 173 581 81 613 88 610 87 623 88 578 78 569 76 597 84 27 64 599 85
14 09/28 3415 69 82 114 78 10.2 86 9.7 72 9.7 69 9.9 79 SC 56 79
Taktedy Melanie R00001 173 637 92 549 68 606 87 636 90 536 63 588 82 594 83 34 95 594 84
13 03/23 3400 87 57 118 76 10.4 89 9.1 58 9.8 77 9.8 78 SC 94 77
Haynton Marie C00001 175 602 87 517 56 566 75 561 71 525 60 676 96 594 83 27 64 583 80
13 03/05 34 77 47 113 64 9.5 63 8.9 54 10.8 96 9.7 78 SC 56 73
3
Natlusek Rachel K00001 173 614 89 517 56 570 77 528 58 446 31 579 79 520 58 25 52 542 67
13 02/14 34 81 47 113 66 9.0 51 7.8 30 9.7 73 8.8 50 SC 44 57
Moarey Kacie M00001 217 614 89 386 15 499 51 602 83 491 47 579 79 563 75 30 82 538 66
13 09/26 3450 81 9 108 39 10.2 79 8.6 43 9.7 73 9.5 66 SC 74 56
Kleinman Daniel J00001 173 524 61 527 59 527 61 579 76 491 47 511 54 528 62 22 34 524 62
13 04/30 3426 49 50 108 50 9.8 71 8.6 43 8.7 44 9.0 53 SC 28 52
Vugorska Justina 00001 137 558 73 468 39 510 56 517 53 525 60 521 59 520 58 29 76 510 57
13 09/29 3499 61 28 108 44 8.9 47 8.9 54 9.0 48 8.9 50 SC 68 47
Baniels Brian M00001 173 547 70 527 59 540 67 472 35 525 60 511 54 498 50 19 19 509 56
13 08/16 34 57 50 113 54 8.1 30 8.9 54 8.7 44 8.6 41 SC 16 47
Saitnella Anthonv J00001 207 558 73 517 56 540 67 541 63 503 52 437 29 494 49 29 76 507 55
13 04/29 3499 61 47 110 54 9.2 55 8.7 47 7.6 21 8.5 40 SC 68 46
Lomerez Kaitlyn N00001 999 515 56 486 45 499 51 561 71 428 26 521 59 502 51 30 82 496 51
13 06/06 34 45 35 106 39 9.5 63 7.5 24 9.0 48 8.7 43 SC 74 41
Gonzalez AlexandrM00001 175 502 50 496 48 499 51 508 50 409 21 562 73 491 48 20 24 490 48
13 07/11 34 40 39 107 39 8.7 43 7.2 19 9.6 65 8.5 39 SC 19 38
Drand Rachel M00001 217 558 73 424 23 491 47 500 47 419 23 450 33 458 35 26 58 466 40
13 05/12 3450 61 15 105 35 8.6 39 7.3 22 7.8 24 7.9 26 SC 50 28
Ertellazyk JonathanM00001 183 405 18 414 21 399 17 425 21 359 10 262 3 375 11 28 70 369 11
13 02/22 3450 13 13 89 11 7.5 15 6.5 8 5.2 1 6.4 4 SC 62 6
HSPT® Rank-Order List Report
See explanation on page 4.
4 4
ALPHABETICAL LIST REPORT AND RANK-ORDER LIST REPORT
The test scores for a given student appear on two separate list reports: the Alphabetical List Report and the Rank-Order List Report (from highest to lowest) of the composite scores. Unless special arrangements were made, two copies of the Alphabetical List Report and two copies of the Rank-Order List Report are provided for your use. Each list report is suitably labeled for convenient identification, and each copy is distinctively colored for ease in use and distribution within the school. The basic format of both lists is identical. The reports are illustrated on pages 2 and 3.
Both reports are divided into six major columns, each of which provides a rich assortment of information about the individual student. At the far left you will find the “STUDENT’S NAME” column, as it was gridded on the answer sheet at the time of testing.
The second column, “CODES,” accommodates two lines of coded information. The specific codes may be located and identified by referring to the descriptions shown at the top of this column. The value of these codes and their uses are discussed on pages 9 and 10.
“COGNITIVE SKILLS” is the third major column, which presents the scores the student earned on the Verbal and Quantitative subtests as well as his or her total score for these two subtests combined. The computed cognitive skills quotient (CSQ), which replaces the traditional IQ, will be found in this column as well.
The next major column is “BASIC SKILLS,” which displays the scores attained on the Reading, Mathematics, and Language subtests. The scores for these three subtests are combined and reported as a total basic skills score.
The fifth major column is designated “OPTION” and contains the scores for any of the optional tests—Science, Catholic Religion, and Mechanical Aptitude—which may have been administered in conjunction with the HSPT®. For your convenience, the optional test used is identified by a two-letter abbreviation (SC, RL, and MC) beneath the scores. An optional local test can be used to supplement the HSPT®. STS will score a school’s local assessment and generate raw scores and local percentiles, provided the assessment is in a multiple-choice format with at least four foils. An optional local test must not exceed 40 items, and a school must provide an answer key to the STS Scoring Center prior to testing.
The composite scores are provided in the sixth major column, “COMPOSITE.” The composite score indicates a student’s total performance on the five subtests that comprise the HSPT® battery. Like any total score, it cannot be reported when one or more of the component subtests have been omitted from the testing.
NORMATIVE SCORES
As indicated by the score legend at the bottom of the Alphabetical List Report, five different types of scores are incorporated into a student’s test results. As may be noted in the illustration, three or four of these measures are used in connection with each subtest or total score. The specific scores included for a given part may be identified by abbreviations which appear at the top of the appropriate column. The five types of scores are explained below.
National Percentile (NP) Rank
The percentile-rank scale ranges from 1 to 99 and compares the performance of an individual student with that of other students within the same grade level. More specifically, a national percentile rank indicates the percentage of raw scores (i.e., the total number of correct responses) in the representative national norm sample that are lower than the raw score attained by a given student. Therefore, if an individual’s raw score on the Math subtest is equal to the 64th percentile, this means the raw score was higher than 64 percent of those in the national norm sample.
Local Percentile (LP) Rank
Local percentile ranks provide the same basic comparison as national percentile ranks except that the comparison group is composed of local students rather than a national sample. In the case of your test results, the local group consists of all of the students who were tested either at your school (if your testing was an independent effort) or in your school system/district (if your testing was part of a coordinated, multi-school program). If a student earns a local percentile of 71 on the Language subtest, this means the raw score was higher than 71 percent of those in your group and/or school system/district.
5 5
Grade Equivalents (GE)
Percentile ranks compare the performance of an individual student with other students at the same grade level. Grade equivalents compare the performance of an individual with the average performance of students at other grade levels. Consequently, the grade equivalent scale extends across grade levels. As a normative measure, grade equivalent scores are subject to several limitations and certain precautions must be observed:
1) Unfortunately, grade equivalents lend themselves to misinterpretation. If an eighth-grade student earns a GE of 10.4 on the Math subtest, this does not mean that the student is capable of doing tenth-grade math. It sim-ply means that the student can do eighth-grade math as well as an average high school sophomore can do
eighth-grade math.
2) Grade equivalents are meaningful only within the range of skills measured by the test administered. In the case of the eighth-grade student who earns a GE of 10.4 on the Math subtest, it is clear that this individual is doing considerably better than most eighth graders. It must be remembered, however, that such a test was designed primarily to assess those math skills and concepts that should have been learned through the eighth grade. If this student were given a math test designed for use at the tenth-grade level, it is very unlikely that he or she would attain a GE of 10.4.
3) Grade equivalents should not be used as the basis for placing students at grade levels that correspond to attained GE scores.
Cognitive Skills Quotient (CSQ)
This measure replaces the traditional IQ score, but its purpose within the school setting remains the same—to func-tion as a predictive index of a student’s future academic performance in order to assess learning potential. Like the IQ, the CSQ is based upon the student’s scores on both the Verbal and Quantitative subtests as well as his or her age at the time of testing. Unlike pure intelligence tests, however, these subtests do not restrict themselves to measure only innate abilities. Instead, test items were carefully designed to provide various measures of the cognitive skills (i.e., skills related to learning) whether such skills are innate or acquired. Consequently, the CSQ is a richer, broader mea-sure since the test items upon which it is based have a wider, more extensive scope than those ordinarily used in intelligence tests.
For convenience, the CSQ was designed statistically to be interpreted in the same manner as the traditional IQ. Thus, the following guide may be used in evaluating the CSQ:
above 130 represents academic potential that is found in approximately the upper 3% of the school population;
110 & above represents academic potential that is found in the upper 25% of the school population;100–109 represents academic potential that is found in the second quarter of the school popula-
tion—50th to 75th percentiles;90–99 represents academic potential that is found in the third quarter of the school population—
25th to 49th percentiles;89 & below represents academic potential that is found in the lower 25% of the school population;below 70 represents academic potential that is found in approximately the lower 3% of the school
population.
6 6
Standard Scores (SS)
A new edition of the HSPT® is published annually, and the national normative scores described thus far are developed
each year for the newest form of the test series. As a result, these normative measures are current and ensure that
students seeking admission or entering a high school can be compared with an up-to-date representative national
sample of their peers.
Establishing a new normative scale each year offers distinct advantages, but also introduces a potential problem. The
annual scale is affected by any shift in performance that might occur within the normative sample groups from
one year to another. (Such shifts have been amply demonstrated among the national samples of entering college
students.) As a consequence, performance at the 65th national percentile on the current scale may not have the same
meaning as performance at the 65th national percentile on an earlier scale. This variability—when it occurs—can be
troublesome for administrators and admission personnel who wish to compare the data for an entering group with
that obtained from groups in the past.
Suppose, for example, that the math skills of those in the national norm samples slowly declined from one year to the
next. If the math skills of your entering groups remained essentially unchanged during the same period, the normative
scores of your groups would slowly increase across the years. Such “improvement” is largely theoretical, of course,
and is merely a reflection of the declining performance of their national counterparts. In a more absolute sense or
from the standpoint of curriculum and teaching techniques, the level of your students’ math skills is unchanged. If
the math skills of your groups were eroding at the same pace as those in the national samples; however, it is likely
that their normative scores would remain essentially the same from one year to another.
The key point to be noted is that any performance shift within the national sample will be reflected—in some fashion
and to some degree—in the data for your groups and could lead to misinterpretations when year-by-year comparisons
are attempted. Since such comparisons can be extremely valuable when suitable confidence may be placed in the
conclusions, some solution to this difficulty was needed. It came in 1980 when Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. intro-
duced the use of standard scores into the HSPT® reports.
At that time, a normalized standard score scale was developed for all subtest and total scores of the 1980 edition,
Series EE. These three-digit scores—with a mean of 500 and standard deviation of 100—are invariant from year to
year and edition to edition. Patterned after the College Entrance Examination Board procedures, all subsequent edi-
tions of the HSPT® are equated to the Series EE, and this inter-relationship is expressed in the form of standard scores
that are included in the various reports. Consequently, the standard score scale is an absolute, unchanging frame of
reference which permits group comparisons to be made year after year with precision and confidence. In most
instances a given standard score scale ranged from 200 to 800. (For those interested in specifics, the equating proce-
dures are based upon the Rasch latent trait model. A complete explanation is contained in STS' HSPT® Technical
Supplement and HSPT® Validity Studies.)
USING THE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
The national percentiles, local percentiles, grade equivalents, and standard scores offer each test user a variety of
perspectives within which the performance of a student may be viewed. It should be apparent that the choice of which
normative score(s) to use will vary according to the experience of the test user, his or her professional preferences,
and the particular task to accomplish. We offer the following general comments for your consideration.
7 7
STS’ HSPT® has been in continuous use since 1958. During its long history, the various editions have been admin-istered to several million students, and an extensive number of research projects have been conducted. These have demonstrated repeatedly that the composite score is the best single measure for predicting subsequent academic performance. Consequently, we can recommend the use of this score in such applications as admission, scholarship awards, general placement, and so forth. (For those interested in specifics, predictive validity studies are reported in the HSPT® Validity Studies manual and the individual technical supplements which are published for each edition.)
Individual subtest scores should be carefully evaluated when placing students in specific courses. Based upon a sur-vey of HSPT® users, it is evident that most schools utilize two or more subtest scores for this purpose. Thus, both the Quantitative and Mathematics scores are frequently considered for placement in math courses; while the Verbal, Reading, and Language scores are considered for English courses; and so forth. In addition, many reported the use of other criteria as well, such as elementary school grades and teacher recommendations.
Do not overlook the advantages offered by the local percentile scores. If your school tested independently—rather than participating in a coordinated, multi-school program—your local percentiles are based solely upon the performance of your group of students. Consequently, a student’s local percentile on a given subtest directly indicates how well or poorly that performance compares with others in your group, regardless of how well or poorly that performance compares with the national sample. Thus, you can easily identify the high-, average-, or low-performing students with respect to the group itself. Such scores can be very helpful in placing students in classes formed upon similar levels of a given skill.
As was noted earlier, standard scores function as a fixed common denominator among the various HSPT® editions. As a result, the primary value of this scale lies in the area of evaluating group results from one year to the next. Nevertheless, the standard scores have some applications in the area of individual test results. For example, you may find a small number of students, all of whom attained the 99th percentile on a given subtest or the battery composite. It is quite likely, however, that the standard score each earned will not be identical, which allows further differentia-tion among them. This can be very useful in settings where a single scholarship is to be awarded.
If your school has established a cut-off score for admission, placement into an advanced math course, and so on, you may wish to consider using a standard score cut-off rather than one of the other normative scores. Since the stan-dard scores are an invariant measure, such a cut-off may be used year after year with the assurance that it is identify-ing students who have met or surpassed a consistent level of performance in a particular area. Since other national normative measures are subject to some variability, their use as a cut-off may be less precise over a period of time. (See discussion of standard scores on page 6.) Regardless of which measure is used as a cut-off, it is always desirable to conduct appropriate research studies within the school to determine its effectiveness as a selection device.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Local and National Norms
The distinction between local norms and national norms is confusing for many students and parents. In non-technical terms, each simply represents an established scale or standard of performance—a type of yardstick, so to speak—by means of which a student’s performance can be measured and compared. In theory, the national scale and the local scale could be very similar if not identical, but in practice rarely are. Since the two scales commonly differ (to a greater or lesser extent), it follows that they commonly give different comparative measures (also to a greater or lesser extent) of student performance. Such differences, particularly when they are large, can be confusing.
8 8
Of the two, the national norm scale is undoubtedly the more familiar. This scale is established on the basis of a nationwide testing program that is conducted at the time a test battery is standardized. Thus, the national norm scale offers the means to compare an individual’s performance (raw score) against that of a representative sample of stu-dents throughout the nation. Regardless of the type of normative score—percentile ranks, grade equivalents, standard scores—all national norm scales are established in this manner.
The phrase “local norms” refers to the scale that is based solely upon the performance (raw score) of a given group of students—most commonly, all those who were tested in a given school. In this context the phrase “school norms” could be interchanged with local norms. This scale is established by ranking student raw scores on a given subtest from highest to lowest. Whether the group’s collective performance is very high or very low with respect to the national scale, it should be apparent that some students must be at or near the top of this ranking (these would com-prise the upper 5% of the group) while others must be at or near the bottom (the lower 5% of the group). Those in the upper 5% achieved the highest performance within this group and, regardless of their performance in terms of the national scale, will earn local percentile ranks of 95 or above to indicate their high position in their local group. As one might expect, those in the lower 5% will earn local percentile ranks of 5 or below to signify their bottom position within the local group.
In effect, national and local normative scales provide two different frames of reference in which to view an individ-ual’s performance. Therefore, it is possible for a student to obtain high national norm scores (because his or her performance compared favorably with the national sample) and low local norm scores (because that performance fell in the lower ranges of the local group ranking). Conversely, a student could earn high local norm scores (because his or her performance fell in the upper ranges of the local group) and low national norm scores (because that perfor-mance was below par with respect to the national scale).
QUESTIONABLE HSPT® SCORES
It can be very disconcerting for all concerned when the reported test scores sharply disagree with our expectations and/or other available data. Fortunately, this is not a common problem, but it merits some attention.
Group Performance If your Group Summary Statistical Report (discussed on page 11) indicates that the students performed unexpectedly high or low on a particular subtest, the most likely explanation is that some irregularity occurred during the administration of the subtest. For example, reducing the specified time limits tends to lower performance; extending them serves to raise performance. Since the unexpected results may have been caused by an error that went unnoticed, it is often difficult for the test administrator to recognize that an irregularity occurred at all. Nevertheless, mistakes are made—recognized or not—and the only indication may be an unexpected and unex-plainable shift in the group’s performance on a single subtest. Other factors which typically lower group performance include departing from the test directions as given in the Manual of Directions, any disruptive or distracting activ-ity during the testing session, poor physical conditions in the room used for testing (temperature, lighting, ventila-tion), and so forth.
Individual Performance Virtually all inquiries related to student performance are concerned with individuals whose test results are lower than expected. A typical example: Lisa Smith is an excellent math student, but her math scores are substantially below average. A typical reaction: the scores don’t make any sense.
When the unexpected test results are confined to a single individual, it is highly unlikely that administrative irregu-larities are responsible. Instead, one must be alert for factors that would have an impact only upon the student involved. For those who encounter a “Lisa Smith” among their students, we offer the following suggestions:
9 9
1) Discuss the matter with Lisa at the earliest opportunity. Such a discussion may be unproductive since the testing probably occurred several weeks earlier, making recall difficult. Nevertheless, she may remember that the math subtest seemed especially difficult, or she found the directions confusing, or she may have skipped one or more items (which might have led her to mark her subsequent responses in the wrong loca-tions). You may discover that she did not feel well that day or was extremely anxious about taking the test. Lisa may realize that you share her concern about the math scores, have reservations about their validity, and are prepared to pursue the matter further if necessary. Most students (and parents) find such an attitude sup-portive and reassuring.
2) Contact the STS Scoring Center, request a verification of the math scores, and include any information that may have a bearing on the matter. In this age of optical mark readers (electronic scoring devices), high-speed computers, and sophisticated computer programming, it is extremely unlikely that Lisa’s math responses were erroneously scored and reported. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate question which needs and deserves a definitive answer.
3) Inspect Lisa’s answer sheet, particularly her math responses. (Answer sheets are generally returned with verification replies.) Excessive erasures frequently indicate uncertainty or confusion on the part of the student. Determine whether she responded to every item on the subtest or omitted a substantial number (25% or more). Time limits for the HSPT® are generous. Consequently, excessive omissions usually indicate that the student found the subtest quite difficult or was overly cautious in responding, perhaps only marking those items about which he or she felt very confident. Finally, examine Lisa’s responses to the math items, noting each item in the test booklet used for the testing. (If one is not available, request a copy from STS.) If possible, examine the responses with Lisa and discuss those that are incorrect. Such a session can be very enlightening for both you and the student.
Needless to say, these suggestions require additional time and effort, but they will yield the maximum amount of information about the subtest in question. In the vast majority of instances it is possible to arrive at a definitive con-clusion regarding the validity of questionable test scores.
CODED STUDENT INFORMATION
The HSPT® answer sheets, both two- and four-page sheets, contain a special code grid immediately below the student name grid. This grid contains space for mark-ing an individual’s: a) elementary school code, b) first, second and third choice high school codes, c) other codes, and d) optional codes that may be needed. These sections (elementary school, high school choice(s), other codes, and optional codes) offer a total of twenty-three columns, each of which contains response posi-tions numbered zero through nine. Any marks entered in these columns automatically appear in appropriately des-ignated locations on the HSPT® report materials. (Please note that this information is specific only to the use of the general HSPT® Manual of Directions.)
For those who wish to use the special code grid in their HSPT® programs, it should be understood that certain preparations must be made prior to the test date. For example, if each student is to identify his or her elementary school, it is necessary to develop a list of all elementary schools represented in the group (or in the area served by the high school), so that each school may be assigned a unique 3-digit code. In most settings such a “code list” is reproduced in sufficient quantity to provide each student with a copy on the day of testing. Experience has clearly established two basic rules for code lists. First, assigned codes should never include leading zeros (e.g., 001) since these tend to be ignored by students; second, a general code (e.g., 999) should be included to be used, for example, when a student cannot find his or her elementary school among those shown on the code list.
SAMPLE SPECIAL CODING
10 10
Some schools may wish to include other codes specific to their HSPT® programs. For example, if an individual
school wishes to know what foreign language each incoming student hopes to study, these codes may be coded in the
“OTHER CODES” column. The school might offer five foreign language courses, and they will be arbitrarily coded
“10” to “50.” A code of “60” is assigned to an “Undecided or None” category. In column A under “OTHER CODES,”
the students will write the appropriate code to show their language preference. Students will use column B under
“OTHER CODES” to show previous study of the language. A “10” in column B means “yes, previous study”; a “20”
in column B means “no previous study.” Students who marked “0” in column A (undecided or no interest) are
directed to leave column B blank. Another common situation may request that more specific information be provided by
the schools and/or students. Under “OPTIONAL CODES,” a school system may have school identification numbers,
Social Security numbers, or additional special coding included in this section.
When developing response possibilities within a given area, care must be exercised to ensure that only one response
can be selected from the list since the related column (or columns) can accept only a single coded response. Multiple
responses within the same column generate a “multi-mark condition” which electronic scanning devices are pro-
grammed to disregard as ambiguities. Whether the special code grids are used for their designated purposes or in
connection with a questionnaire, the appearance of the coded responses on the HSPT® reports often eliminates the
need to search for such information in other files or lists, which simplifies the use of the results.
It should also be noted that STS can produce any of the reports discussed in this manual based upon student respons-
es in the special code grids. Thus, separate alphabetical listings could be developed for each of the elementary school
codes that are represented in a given code list. Similarly, listings could be produced for students who are planning to
attend college, junior college, trade school, and any other category that might be included in an educational goals
category. Of course, such reports are provided only upon request and increase the cost of HSPT® programs.
Nevertheless, a growing number of schools have discovered that the nominal cost is more than offset by such advan-
tages as convenience, immediate availability of the data, and more effective use of personnel time.
11 11
See explanation on pages 12–15.
GROUP I.D.
DATE:
GRADE:
SEC:
FORM:
PAGE:
CODES
COGNITIVE SKILLS
BASIC SKILLS
OPTION
COMPOSITE
WITHOUT
OPTION
()
TEST
CENTER
ELEM
SCHOOL
CHOICES
OTHER
12
312
VERBAL
QUANT
TOTAL
READING
MATH
LANGUAGE
TOTAL
SS-STANDARD SCORE
NP-NATIONAL PERCENTILE
LP-LOCAL PERCENTILE
GE-GRADE EQUIVALENT
CSQ-
COGNITIVE SKILLS QUOTIENT
34
OPTIONAL CODES
RS-RAW SCORE
SUMMARY REPORT BY TOTAL GROUP RUN DATE: 11/12/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL 00001 11/22/08 08 K
NATIONAL
STANINE* PERCENTILE GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP
BAND * INTERVALS FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ % FREQ %
*************** F R E Q U E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N ***************
99
9 98
96-97 1 6 1 6 1 6
94-95 1 6 1 6 1 6
8 92-93 1 6 2 13 1 6
90-91 HIGH 1 6 1 6 1 6
88-89 3 19 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6
85-87 1 6 2 13 1 6 2 13
7 81-84 1 6 1 6 1 6 2 13 2 13 1 6 3 19 2 13 1 6
76-80 1 6 3 19 1 6 3 19 2 13 1 6
**********
6 69-75 6 38 2 13 2 13 1 6 1 6 1 6
60-68 1 6 2 13 3 19 1 6 4 25 1 6 3 19 3 19
5 51-59 AVERAGE 1 6 5 31 4 25 2 13 1 6 4 25 3 19 3 19 4 25
41-50 1 6 2 13 1 6 2 13 2 13 3 19 1 6
4 26-40 1 6 1 6 2 13 2 13 1 6 1 6 1 6
24-25 1 6
**********
19-23 2 13 1 6 2 13 1 6
3 15-18 1 6 1 6 1 6
12-14
10-11 1 6 1 6 1 6
2 08-09 LOW
06-07
04-05
1 02-03 1 6
01
--------N-COUNTS, STANDARD SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS---------
GROUP SIZE TOT: 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
STANDARD SCORE MEANS 559 516 541 552 505 542 538 536
STANDARD SCORE STAN.DEVIATIONS 55 71 58 56 77 97 67 65
----------NATIONAL PERCENTILES FOR SELECTED GROUP PERCENTILES----------
75TH %-ILE 88 68 78 81 64 83 84 77 85
GROUP PERCENTILES 50TH %-ILE 73 56 67 71 53 74 59 64 63
25TH %-ILE 62 40 51 51 27 54 50 53 52
00002
HSPT® Group Summary Statistical Report
12 12
THE GROUP SUMMARY STATISTICAL REPORT
As its name suggests, this report summarizes the performance of each distinct group of students that participated in a given HSPT® testing session. In most instances the students constitute an integrated whole; consequently, most schools receive two copies of a single Group Summary Statistical Report. Quite simply, its purpose is to provide an overall picture of the collective performance of the individuals who were tested. More specifically, it presents a distri-bution of their scores in terms of two different national norm scales, reports the means and standard deviations of the standard scores, and relates selected levels within the group to the national percentile-rank scale. A sample of the Group Summary Statistical Report is given on page 11.
Frequency Distribution
The frequency distribution occupies the upper portion of the Group Summary Statistical Report. The column at the far left contains a listing of the national stanine and national percentile-rank scales while the adjacent column divides these scales into their high (76th to 99th percentiles), average (24th to 75th percentiles), and low (1st to 23rd percen-tiles) components. (A table showing the fixed relationship between stanines and percentiles is shown below.) To the right of this display, under “FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION,” you will find the number (frequency) of students and the percentage within the group who earned a given national norm score on each subtest, the totals for the cognitive and basic skills tests, the optional test if administered, and the composite score.
Thus, a look at the sample reveals that on the Reading subtest, 2 students (13%) earned a national percentile of 81–84, which in turn is equivalent to a national stanine of 7. By combining selected data points, it can be determined that the Reading performance of 2 students (12%) fell within the upper 12% of the national normative sample (88th percentile), which corresponds to the 8th national stanine band, and that a total of 7 students (44%) earned Reading scores which fell in the high range of the national scales. From the data points shown for Math, it may be determined that the performance of 2 students (13%) fell within the 4th stanine band. For Language, a total of 3 students (19%) fell at or below the national average (50th percentile), and 1 student (6%) fell in the low range of the national scales.
Needless to say, the focus of this report is based upon the group rather than individuals. Hence, if one wishes to identify the students who attained a national percentile of 99 for the composite score, it would be necessary to search the list of individual student results to discover their names.
Stanine Percentile Rating
9
8 76–99 High
7
6
5 24–75 Average
4
3
2 01–23 Low
1
Fixed Relationship Between Stanines and Percentiles
13 13
In essence, the frequency distributions are a graphic display of your students’ scores on each component of the HSPT®, and an analysis of these data can provide useful insights into their performance characteristics. You may wish to begin simply by noting the highest and lowest points represented in a given distribution. These points define not only the range of skills possessed by your group in terms of the national scales, but also the scope of the local percentile scale developed for a given subtest. Consequently, it is possible to obtain a general impression of the relationship between the local and national scales. For example, the range of “TOTAL BASIC SKILLS” scores of the sample group, shown on page 11, extends from the 10th–11th interval of the national percentile scale to the 92nd–93rd interval. Since this range also marks the limits of the local percentile scale, one can add the local percentiles in the right column of each score report-ed and see that the lowest 6% (6% in the 10th–11th national percentile interval) are at the 10th–11th national percentile interval. Similarly, the highest 6% according to the local percentiles are at the 92nd–93rd percentile interval.
The distributions may also be used to determine the number and/or percentage of students represented in the high, average, and low categories or in some other categorical scheme of your own devising. Such information can be useful in establishing the number or percentage of students who are likely candidates for admission or placement in your setting and the relative range of skills represented in the defined categories.
In some settings the skills of the group will range from the lowest end of the national scales to the highest, and the majority of scores will occur in the average category, with the balance divided more or less evenly between the two. Such groups may be described as typical or normal, if their scores were plotted in a conventional graph, since the resulting curve would approximate the familiar bell-shaped or normal curve. In other instances, however, the major-ity of scores will occur in either the high or low categories or exhibit marked tendencies in one of these directions. Such groups may be described as atypical and often are the result of a school’s location, general reputation, or other factors which attract a much more homogeneous group of prospective students.
Whether your group is typical or highly unusual, the frequency distributions can assist you in recognizing both the specific and general performance characteristics of your applicants, and in forming preliminary judgments related to admission or placement factors.
N-counts, Standard Score Means, and Standard Deviations
As noted earlier, the standard score scale is an invariant measure based upon the 1980 national normative sample. This scale has the following characteristics:
• theaveragestandardscoreis500• 700correspondsapproximatelytothe98thpercentile• 600correspondsapproximatelytothe84thpercentile• 400correspondsapproximatelytothe16thpercentile• 300correspondsapproximatelytothe2ndpercentile
The standard score means or averages shown for your students are based upon this scale, and in effect compare their performance with that of the 1980 national sample. Such a comparison may be of interest in itself, but the greatest value of the scale lies in its ability to function as a common denominator between various editions of the HSPT®. Thus, it forms a bridge between your current group and previous groups, and allows you to make direct comparisons of their respective performance levels.
14 14
When comparing two groups of students, each consisting of 100 or more individuals, differences as small as 4 or 5
points between standard score means are statistically significant; that is, one can conclude with reasonable confi-
dence that the observed difference stems from a true difference in test performance rather than the occurrence of
chance variations. As either the size of the groups or the magnitude of the difference increases, the same conclusion
may be drawn with even greater confidence. One must also recognize, however, that a difference which is statisti-
cally significant does not always possess practical significance. While differences in the range of 5 to 40 standard
score points are statistically significant for groups of 100 or more, such differences are not large enough to warrant
any special concern other than noting their occurrence and the direction of the shift. In other words, the skill level of
the two groups—while measurably different—is sufficiently similar to be considered equivalent for all practical pur-
poses. Consequently, differences in this range lack practical significance.
As one might expect, observed differences in excess of 40 standard score points require more than a passing comment
on your part. Values in this range are indicative of substantial differences in test performance between groups, and
thus, signify major differences in their respective skill levels. When confronted by differences of this magnitude,
attention should be focused upon the curriculum related to the area in which the excessive difference was observed.
For example, if the standard score mean for Math of the current group were 45 to 50 points lower than that earned
by an earlier group, one would be well-advised to re-evaluate the math curriculum with respect to its suitability for
a group whose math skills are substantially weaker than those of previous students. A separate remedial program
might also be considered for those whose individual standard scores in Math are well below the mean of the current
group. Conversely, if the math performance of the current group were 45 or 50 points higher than earlier students, it
might be appropriate to increase the scope, pace, or depth of the curriculum to accommodate or even challenge their
higher level of math skills.
It should be noted that differences in excess of 40 points usually are not observed between groups whose testings are
separated only by a year or two. Typically, year-by-year comparisons yield differences well within the 5–40 range noted
earlier. However, if a given trend continues over an extended period, the accumulated differences (or the difference
between the initial and current groups) can reach proportions that merit serious attention. In other words, substantial
changes in performance are more likely to creep into view than burst dramatically upon the scene. Consequently, for
those who wish to monitor this aspect of the HSPT®, it is vital to retain the data obtained from each testing for use
in subsequent analyses.
Finally, one should not lose sight of the fact that a standard score mean reflects the general performance level of the group
in a given area, but it offers no insights regarding the specific skills which underlie that performance. It may be clear,
for example, that the language performance of your applicants is declining, but this fact sheds no light upon
which specif ic skills have deteriorated and thus contributed to the decline. In settings where curricular modifica-
tions or remediation programs are under consideration, information concerning the relative strengths and weak-
nesses of specific skills can be especially useful. Such information can be provided in the form of two different
reports—the Performance Profile and the Individual or Group Item Analyses—which are discussed later in this manual.
15 15
National Percentiles for Selected Group Percentiles
As was noted earlier, the frequency distributions present a very detailed picture of your students' performance by
reporting the exact number of individuals occurring in each national percentile interval and/or stanine band. The
purpose of this section of the Group Summary Statistical Report is to provide an abbreviated description of your
group's performance, and in doing so, to refocus attention upon their performance as compared with their peers in
the current national normative sample. At the far left of this section are the selected rank positions within the group
(i.e., the group or local percentiles). The 75th %-ile represents the typical performance of those in the upper half of
your group, the 50th %-ile indicates the typical performance of the group as a whole, and the 25th %-ile reflects the
typical performance of those in the lower half of the group. Immediately to the right, in each of the columns related
to test performance, are the national percentile ranks attained by your group as a whole as well as those in the upper
and lower segments.
If you wish to evaluate the typical or average performance of your group (i.e., the 50th percentile or the median),
your attention would be directed to the national percentiles that appear in each of the test-related columns on the same
line as the phrase “50th %-ile.” Any national percentile of 50 indicates that the average performance of your group
is the same as the average performance within the national sample; that is, the 50th percentile of your group corre-
sponds to the 50th percentile for the national sample. Any national percentile greater than 50 indicates that the
typical performance of your students was higher than that of the national sample; any below 50 indicates lower per-
formance. As may be seen in the sample Group Summary Statistical Report on page 11, the average performance of
that group was above the national average on every component of the HSPT® ranging from 53 for Math to 74 for
Language.
If the average performance of the upper half of your group is under consideration (i.e., the 75th percentile, or the
upper 25% of your group), you would note the national percentiles that appear in each test-related column on the
same line as the phrase “75th %-ile.” If, for example, the performance on the Language subtest from this segment
of your group were equal to their counterparts in the national sample, you would find a national percentile of 75 in
the Language column. Any value higher than 75 would indicate that the performance of this segment (the upper 25%)
was higher than that of the upper 25% of the national sample; any below 75 would signify lower performance. As
may be noted, this segment of the sample group outperformed those in the national sample by earning national per-
centiles above 75 on every component except Quantitative Skills and Math. To be more specific, the average perfor-
mance of those in the upper half of that group (75th %-ile) was equivalent to a national percentile of 81 for Reading;
hence, their performance exceeded 75% of those in the local group and 81% of those in the national sample. In other
words, those in the upper 25% of the illustrated group are in the upper 19% of the national sample in this subject
area.
The data given for the average performance of those in the lower half of your group (25th %-ile) may be analyzed in
a similar manner. One must remember, of course, to adjust the level of comparison to correspond to the level of the
segment being evaluated. As may be noted in the sample Group Summary Statistical Report, this segment outper-
formed their counterparts in the national sample in every area, ranging from 27 for Math to 62 for Verbal Skills.
16 16
NATIONAL PERCENTILE GROUP SUMMARY (See above report).
The National Percentile Group Summary is a report that displays the results of the HSPT® testing program in three different ways. The first bar graph shows how the group median compares your total group median or average per-formance to the national average. The second bar graph displays how the students in the top 25% of your group tested compares to the top 25% of the nation. Finally, the third bar graph displays the bottom 25% of the group tested to those in the bottom 25% of the nation. While the bars represent the local group of students, a horizontal line has been drawn to show where your group compares to the national average. Please note that any optional test is not included in the computation of the Battery Composite score.
HSPT® National Percentile Group Summary
17 17
See explanation on pages 18–19.
HSPT® Performance Profile
ST
S H
IGH
SC
HO
OL
PLA
CE
ME
NT
TE
ST
H25
Per
form
ance
Pro
file
Bas
ic S
kills Rea
ding
Mat
hem
atic
sLa
ngua
geT
otal
Tot
al
CS
Q =
Qua
ntita
tive
Ver
bal
Cog
nitiv
e S
kills
Com
posi
te (
w/o
Opt
ion)
Loca
lP
ct-S
tP
ct-S
tN
at'l
1020
3050
7080
9099
1
Rep
ort f
or:
Gra
de:
Age
:G
ende
r:S
ectio
n:F
orm
:O
ther
-Cod
es:
Ele
m:
H.S
. Cho
ices
:O
ther
:
Dat
e:
Maj
or T
est A
reas
Per
form
ance
Sco
res
Per
form
ance
Rat
ings
Spe
cific
Ski
lls#
ofIte
ms
No.
Rig
ht
LOW
-AVG
AVG
+AVG
HIGH
Spe
cific
Ski
lls#
ofIte
ms
No.
Rig
ht
LOW
-AVG
AVG
+AVG
HIGH
Spe
cific
Ski
lls#
ofIte
ms
No.
Rig
ht
LOW
-AVG
AVG
+AVG
HIGH
Nat
iona
l Per
cent
ile R
anki
ng
Nat
iona
l Sta
nine
Ran
king
Sco
reP
ctC
SQ
ST
GE
SS
RS
- pe
rcen
tile
rank
- co
gniti
ve s
kills
quo
tient
- st
anin
e-
grad
e eq
uiva
lent
- st
anda
rd s
core
- ra
w s
core
12
34
56
78
9
595
Lege
nd
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E S
CO
RE
S. T
his
stud
ent's
per
form
ance
is s
how
n ab
ove
by a
ser
ies
of n
umer
ic s
core
s fo
rea
ch te
st a
rea
take
n. T
hese
may
be
inte
rpre
ted
inth
e co
nven
tiona
l man
ner.
Thu
s, a
nat
iona
lpe
rcen
tile
rank
of 6
5 (w
hich
wou
ld b
e lo
cate
d in
the
Nat
'l co
lum
n) w
ould
indi
cate
that
the
stud
ent's
test
sco
re e
xcee
ded
65 p
erce
nt o
f tho
sein
a n
atio
nal n
orm
ativ
e po
pula
tion.
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
AT
ING
S. T
he s
tude
nt's
nat
iona
l per
cent
ile s
core
s ar
e al
so s
how
n on
the
grap
h. A
ban
d of
mar
ks is
use
d to
allo
w fo
r an
y in
accu
racy
in m
easu
rem
ent w
ith th
e sc
ore
for
this
test
ing
bein
g ne
ar th
ece
nter
. Whe
n co
mpa
ring
any
two
test
s, it
is li
kely
that
ther
e is
a tr
ue d
iffer
ence
in s
core
s on
ly w
hen
the
ends
of t
he b
ands
do
not o
verla
p.F
or m
ost u
ses
perf
orm
ance
may
be
judg
ed b
y no
ting
the
shad
ed o
r un
shad
ed r
atin
g co
lum
n in
whi
ch a
band
occ
urs.
The
Hig
h, A
vera
ge, a
nd L
ow r
atin
gs r
epre
sent
the
high
est 1
0%, m
iddl
e on
e-th
ird, a
nd lo
wes
t10
% r
espe
ctiv
ely.
The
Abo
ve A
vera
ge r
epre
sent
s th
e up
per
one-
third
(ex
clud
ing
the
high
test
10%
) w
hile
the
Ble
ow A
vera
ge r
epre
sent
s th
e lo
wer
one
-thi
rd (
excl
udin
g th
e lo
wes
t 10%
).
SP
EC
IFIC
SK
ILLS
. Eac
h m
ajor
test
are
a co
nsis
ts o
f var
ious
spec
ific
skill
s de
taile
d be
low
. Per
form
ance
is s
how
n on
each
of t
hese
by
the
# of
item
s an
swer
ed c
orre
ctly
and
may
be
eval
uate
d by
not
ing
the
shad
edor
uns
hade
d co
lum
n in
whi
ch a
sin
gle
mar
k oc
curs
.T
hese
col
umns
hav
e th
e sa
me
mea
ning
as th
e sh
aded
/uns
hade
d co
lum
ns in
the
Per
form
ance
Rat
ings
sec
tion.
Low
Bel
owA
vera
geA
bove
Hig
hA
vera
geA
vera
ge
4060
SS
GE
67-
6 4
5-5
56-
5
82-
7 7
2-6
59-
5 7
4-6
65-
6
****
MA
TH
EM
AT
ICS
****
Con
cept
ual
-Num
bers
/Num
erat
ion
-Mea
sure
men
ts-G
eom
etry
-Alg
ebra
-Sta
ts/P
roba
bilit
y
Pro
cedu
ral
-Num
bers
/Num
erat
ion
-Mea
sure
men
ts-G
eom
etry
-Alg
ebra
-Sta
ts/P
roba
bilit
y
App
licat
ions
-Num
bers
/Num
erat
ion
-Mea
sure
men
ts-G
eom
etry
-Alg
ebra
-Sta
ts/P
roba
bilit
y
14 3 4 5 1 1 28 16 1 2 3 6 21 12 2 1 3 3
13 3 3 5 1 1 23 13 1 2 2 5 11 5 0 0 3 3
60-
6 2
8-4
39-
4
68-
6 5
1-5
54-
5 6
1-6
50-
5
9.9
9.2
8.8
9.3
536
485
512
584
544
518
547
533
108
****
**R
EA
DIN
G**
****
Com
preh
ensi
on--
Voc
ab in
Con
text
--Li
tera
l Com
p--
Infe
rent
ial C
omp
-Mai
n Id
ea-D
raw
Con
clus
ions
-Rea
soni
ng-I
mpl
ied
Cha
ract
eri
--C
ritic
al C
omp
-Aut
hor
Pur
pose
/Qua
-Com
pare
/Con
tras
t-F
act/F
ictio
nV
ocab
ular
y
**C
OG
NIT
IVE
SK
ILLS
*
VE
RB
AL
Ana
logy
Logi
cV
erba
l Cla
ssifi
cati
Syn
onym
sA
nton
yms
40 9 5 15 4 8 1 2 11 5 2 4 22 11 12 16 11 10
35 8 4 13 2 8 1 2 10 5 2 3 13 5 6 14 9 8
****
*LA
NG
UA
GE
****
*
Pun
ctua
tion
Cap
italiz
atio
n
Inco
rrec
t Usa
ge--
Nou
ns/P
rono
uns
--V
erbs
/Adv
/Adj
--O
ther
Par
ts/S
pch
Cor
rect
Usa
ge
Spe
lling
Com
posi
tion
**C
OG
NIT
IVE
SK
ILLS
*
QU
AN
TIT
AT
IVE
Seq
uenc
eR
easo
ning
Geo
met
ric C
ompa
riso
Non
-Geo
m C
ompa
rison
11 3 15 4 4 7 11 10 10 22 13 8 9
8 1 8 2 2 4 7 6 7 8 9 6 7
8 O
BY
TO
TA
L G
RO
UP
11/0
2/13
1306
F11
/12/
13A
ndro
ne
Mad
ison
L
BR
EB
EU
F P
RE
PA
RA
TO
RY
SC
HO
O37
495
Run
:S
mith
E
mily
M
SA
MP
LE S
CH
OO
L
18 18
THE PERFORMANCE PROFILE
Upon request this diagnostic report is provided for each student within a group. Generally speaking, it offers a unique
blend of information about student performance in that it not only provides the general scores attained by an indi-
vidual, but also indications of his or her performance on the specific skills assessed by the HSPT® battery. School
personnel will find the convenient size and wealth of data quite useful for a wide range of purposes. The individu-
alized character of the report, its graphic displays, and self-contained explanations make it an ideal report for dis-
tribution to the students and parents. A sample of the Performance Profile is shown on page 17.
The upper portion of this report focuses upon the student’s performance on the various subtests of the HSPT®. The
subtests are identified in the “MAJOR TEST AREAS” section, and the various scores are displayed in the
“PERFORMANCE SCORES” section. In addition to the scores provided in the other report materials, the Performance
Profile includes both local and national stanine scores. Stanines utilize a 9-point scale on which 9 represents the
highest performance, 5 the average, and 1 the lowest. One important advantage of stanines is their basic simplicity,
which some students and parents find less confusing than other types of scores.
At the far right is the “PERFORMANCE RATINGS” section. Here the student’s performance is presented in a
graphic display of square bands. The national percentile rank earned by the individual lies near the center of a given
square band, and its width reflects any variation in measurement that might be likely to occur. The shaded and
unshaded areas of the graph depict the various levels of performance, and the national percentile rank and stanine
scales are shown at the bottom for reference.
The mid-portion of the Performance Profile offers brief explanations of the “PERFORMANCE SCORES” and
“PERFORMANCE RATINGS” shown in the upper portion, as well as the “SPECIFIC SKILLS” data shown in the
lower portion.
The lower portion of this report presents a listing and graphic display of the “SPECIFIC SKILLS” assessed by the
five subtests of the HSPT®. Performance is indicated by the number of items answered correctly—“NO. RIGHT”
column—and the total number of items related to the skill is given as a frame of reference—“# OF ITEMS” column.
As a further aid to interpretation, the student’s performance is indicated by a single “ ” in one of five columns which
have the same meaning as the shaded and unshaded columns in the “PERFORMANCE RATINGS” section in the
upper portion. A more complete description of the specific skills appears on the back of the report.
As may be noted in the sample report for Emily Smith on page 17, the Reading subtest is divided into two major catego-
ries: Comprehension (40 items) and Vocabulary (22 items). Emily correctly answered 35 of the 40 Comprehension
items. The location of the single “ ” indicates that her performance was in the above-average (“+AVG”) range
when compared with the national sample.
The category of Comprehension is further divided into Vocabulary in Context (9 items), Literal Comprehension (5
items), Inferential Comprehension (15 items), and Critical Comprehension (11 items). The report shows the
number of correct responses for each of these more specific areas as well as the ratings those responses earned. Thus,
this student correctly answered 8 of the 9 Vocabulary in Context items, which yielded an above average rating. Some
areas are divided even further. For example, the fifteen items related to Inferential Comprehension consist of four
items dealing with main ideas, eight items dealing with drawing conclusions, one item dealing with reasoning, and
two items dealing with implied characteristics.
19 19
Occasionally, a skill of relatively minor importance is represented in a subtest by only two or three items so that areas
of greater importance may be assessed more fully or in greater depth. Whenever such a skill is measured by three or
less test items, the student’s performance may be reported only in terms of the number of test items involved and the
number correctly answered. If an “ ” is not displayed on the graph, it may be difficult to statistically provide a reli-
able rating based upon such a small item base.
The primary advantage of the Performance Profile lies in its ability to communicate both the general performance
levels of the student as well as a more detailed picture of his or her specific skills. This approach can provide useful
insights for both school personnel and the student. Depending upon the specific factors involved in an individual
case, low or below-average ratings on a specific skill may be acceptable or even expected. If this is not the case,
however, attention is focused upon achievement weaknesses that might otherwise escape unnoticed.
THE PERFORMANCE PROFILE SUMMARY
A Performance Profile Summary is developed for each group of students for whom this report is requested. Its pur-
pose is identical to that of the Group Summary Statistical Report provided in connection with the Alphabetical
List Report and Rank-Order List Report—to present an overall picture of the collective performance of a group of
individuals.
In appearance, the Performance Profile Summary is virtually identical to those provided for the individual stu-
dents. It differs, of course, in that its contents reflect group rather than individual performance. This is accom-
plished by computing averages for the group with respect to both the general test scores in the upper portion and
the number of items correctly answered for the specific skills in the lower portion. These average values are pre-
sented in the appropriate locations and are displayed graphically as well. Note that local percentile and stanine aver-
ages are not shown since such values would invariably be 50 and 5 respectively for any of the general scores.
20 20
See explanation on page 21.
HSPT® Individual Item Analysis Report
Sec:
Test Date:
Test:
Level:
Form:
Page:
Gr:
TOTAL GROUP
INDIVIDUAL ITEM REPORT Run Date:11/12/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL 00001 08
11/22/08 READING
K 1
-------- C O M P R
E H E N S I O N -----------------*V O C A B U L A R Y---
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 101112 13 14
ITEM 111 1111 111111 1 11 1111111 111 11111 1 11 1 1 1111 1111111111111111111111
NUMBERS 123 1123 133345 2 22 1222355 134 12344 4 34 2 4 3444 5555555666666666677777
OBJECTIVE/SKILLS
NAME 694 5836 935940 4 08 7567812 476 31027 3 25 2 0 1189 3456789012345678901234
OUTLINE
Aragonman James ++D ++++ +++++A + ++ +++++B+ ++D ++++B + +B + A ++C+ ++A+C+C+++++A+A+C++++B
COMPREHENSION
VOCABULARY IN CONTEXT
Baniels
Brian ++C +CCA +++++D + +A +BCD++ BDC +++++ B ++ + + D+C+ BBAB+B++A+++DDCDB+++B+
1 Meaning from Context
2 Multi-Meaning Words
Carrillon Ethan +++ ++++ ++++++ + ++ C++++B+ +++ CA++A + ++ + + +++B ++++B+B+A+++++++D+BD+D
LITERAL COMPREHENSION
Drand
Rachel +DA DA++ ++C+++ B ++ +BA++++ ++C ++ADA B A+ + + ++CB ++D+++C+D+C+++B+C+CB+A
3 Details
4 Cause and Effect
Ertellazyk JonathaBC+ ++++ ++++D + ++ CB+++ ++A +++++ + ++ + + +BAB
INFERENTIAL COMPREHENSION
5 Main Idea or Title
Gonzalez Alexand+C+ +C+A ++++++ + ++ +B+A+++ C++ CAA+B + ++ C + +DCB ++A+++CAA++BD+A+++C+BD
6 Drawing Conclusions
7 Reasoning
8 Implied Characteristics
Haynton
Marie +C+ +D++ +++++A A ++ +B+++++ +D+ +D+++ + ++ + + A+B+ ++A+++C++A+BD+CBD++C+D
CRITICAL COMPREHENSION
Herrreral Darren +++ +C++ +++ ++ + ++ CB+++++ ++C +D+++ + ++ + B D+++ ++D+++CDD++BD+A++++B+D
9 Author's Purpose/Theme
10 Comparison and Contrast
11 Author's Qualifications
Kleinman Daniel +++ +C++ ++++++ + ++ +++++++ +++ +AA++ + ++ + + A+CD ++A++C++++AADDC+B+A +B
12 Predictions
13 Fact vs. Fiction
14 VOCABULARY
Lomerez
Kaitlyn+++ +C++ B+++B+ + ++ A++++B+ +++ ++A+B + ++ + + ++C+ C+B+++BA+++BAD+B++AC+D
Moarey
Kacie +++ +A++ ++++++ + ++ +++++BA +++ ++A++ + DB + + ++++ ++AC++BDB+++++AAB++++D
Natlusek Rachel B++ +C++ +++++C + +B +BC++++ ++C +AA+B C ++ + + A++C +DB++C++D++A++BBD++++D
Pleuker
Lauren +++ ++++ B++++A + ++ +B+A+++ +DC C+++A + ++ + + ++B+ +D+++++AD+++++CBC+A+++
Saitnella Anthonv+DA +C++ B+++D+ + ++ C++++C+ +++ +AA++ + ++ + + ++BD +BB+++B++++AD+B+B+CC+B
Taktedy
Melanie+++ +C++ ++++++ + +B +++++++ +++ C+++A + A+ + + ++BC ++B++++A++++++AB++C+++
Vugorska JustinaB++ AC++ +++++A + ++ C+BC+A+ +++ ++B++ + ++ + + ++C+ A+AA+AC++CC++CC+CCCC++
00001
21 21
ITEM ANALYSES—INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP
The test results provided on such reports as the Alphabetical List Report and the Group Summary Statistical Report allow a test user to determine achievement levels for any individual or the group as a whole. In some settings it may be sufficient simply to know, for example, that the math skills of a student are average in terms of the national norma-tive sample or that those of the group are at essentially the same level as earlier groups. In other settings, however, where the focus of attention is upon the specific skills or objectives which underlie general performance, there is a legitimate need for test data reflecting such skills.
The Performance Profile, discussed earlier, allows a test user to gain some insight into these specific skills. However, the Individual Item Analysis Report and Group Item Analysis Report extend this insight to its fullest by providing performance information on an item-by-item basis and relating it to a comprehensive outline of specific skills or objectives. In short, item analyses reports equip the test user to make a penetrating evaluation of specific performance as his or her purpose may require.
Individual Item Analysis Report
A sample Individual Item Analysis Report is shown on page 20. As may be noted, the test results are presented in alphabetical order and restricted to a single subject area–Reading in this instance. At the far right is the “OBJECTIVE/SKILLS OUTLINE” column which identifies the specific skills or objectives measured by the items in this sub-test. Major categories within the outline (e.g., “COMPREHENSION”) reappear as the first line of information in the body of the report as a general reference for the data given below. Each skill or objective within a major category carries an identifying number, and these are presented as the second line of information in the body of the report. The item numbers related to a given objective appear beneath the major category (e.g., 1–Meaning from Context) and constitute the third, fourth, and fifth lines of information (item numbers must be read vertically). Thus, as may be seen in the sample, items 116, 129, and 134, deal with skill 1–Meaning from Context within the major category of “VOCABULARY IN CONTExT.”
Student results are reported in terms of the individual’s response to each test item: a “+” indicates a correct response, a letter indicates the incorrect response that was made, and a blank signified that the student made no response to the test item. As may be seen in the sample, James Aragonman correctly answered two of the three items related to objective 1–Meaning from Context. He elected answer choice D (an incorrect answer) for item 134.
When using the Individual Item Analysis Report, one must not lose sight of its purpose, which is essentially diagnos-tic. Accordingly, it directs attention to student performance on individual items related to specific skills, rather than focusing on a set of normative scores. In this context, evaluation of a student’s performance must be based upon your knowledge of the subject area and the available information concerning the student, his or her educational background, and so forth. If a given objective/skill was included in a school's curriculum, perhaps even emphasized, your expecta-tions would be vastly different than if the objective/skill is commonly excluded or treated lightly. Incorrect responses should be examined by referring to a test booklet. (If one is not available, request a copy from STS.) It is often pos-sible to discover a pattern to the errors on an objective/skill that could provide the basis for remedial instruction.
It should be apparent that this evaluative procedure is virtually identical to that applied to criterion-referenced test results. Needless to say, it is an intensely individualized process, but for this very reason can produce the most useful and meaningful assessments of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the students.
22 22
See explanation on page 23.
HSPT® Group Item Analysis Report
Sec:
Test Date:
Test:
Level:
Form:
Page:
Gr:
TOTAL GROUP
INDIVIDUAL ITEM REPORT Run Date:11/12/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL 00001 08
11/22/08 READING
K 2
-------------------INDIVIDUAL ITEMS--NATIONAL AND GROUP P-VALUES-------------------
ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' ITM NT GP ' CONTENT OUTLINE
# P P
' # P
P ' # P P
' # P P ' # P P ' # P P ' # P P '
-OBJECTIVE-
# AVG-P
' ' ' ' ' ' ' COMPREHENSION
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' VOCABULARY IN CONTEXT
' ' ' ' ' ' '
1 75 116 77 81 ' 129 53 69
' 134 72 75 ' ' ' '
' 1 Meaning from Context
2 73 115 62 88 ' 118 31 25
' 123 85 94 ' 136 62 88 ' ' ' '
2 Multi-Meaning Words
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' LITERAL COMPREHENSION
' ' ' ' ' ' '
3 84 119 77 81 ' 133 91 99
' 135 82 94 ' 139 91 94 ' 144 71 81 ' 150 52 56 ' ' 3 Details
4 88 124 71 88 '
' ' ' ' ' '
4 Cause and Effect
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' INFERENTIAL COMPREHENSION
' ' ' ' ' ' '
5 91 120 87 99 ' 128 85 81
'' ' ' '
' 5 Main Idea or Title
6 71 117 39 63 ' 125 49 50
' 126 75 75 ' 127 69 75 ' 138 93 99 ' 151 57 56
' 152 59 81 ' 6 Drawing Conclusions
7 75 114 64 88 ' 137 83 81
' 146 42 56 ' ' ' '
' 7 Reasoning
8 65 113 62 75 ' 121 52 56
' 130 29 50 ' 142 88 94 ' 147 63 50 ' ' ' 8 Implied Characteristics
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' CRITICAL COMPREHENSION
' ' ' ' ' ' '
9 81 143 49 81 '
' ' ' ' ' '
9 Author's Purpose/Theme
10 84 132 72 81 ' 145 69 88
' ' '
' ' ' 10 Comparison and Contrast
11 94 122 90 94 '
' ' ' ' ' ' 11 Author's Qualifications
12 88 140 83 88 '
' ' ' ' ' ' 12 Predictions
13 58 131 47 69 ' 141 88 88
' 148 30 25 ' 149 41 50 ' ' ' ' 13 Fact vs. Fiction
14 153 75 75 ' 154 57 69 ' 155 27 13 ' 156 75 75 ' 157 44 81 ' 158 42 69 ' 159 38 31 ' 14 VOCABULARY
160 45 56 ' 161 32 44
' 162 60 81 ' 163 67 75 ' 164 40 50 ' 165 39 44
' 166 62 69 '
167 22 13 ' 168 39 50
' 169 35 25 ' 170 63 88 ' 171 34 38 ' 172 63 44
' 173 54 81 '
54 174 21 25 '
' ' ' ' ' '
GROUP SIZE:
16 (NT-P = National P-Value, GP-P = Group
P-Value)
23 23
Group Item Analysis Report
A Group Item Analysis Report is provided routinely when an Individual Item Analysis Report is requested, but it may be ordered without the individual student data if so desired. In either case its purpose is the same—to provide an overall perspective of the collective performance of the group on a single subtest. A sample of this report is shown on page 22.
As in the case of the Individual Item Analysis Report, the specific objectives/skills measured by a given subtest are dis-played in the “CONTENT OUTLINE” column on the right side of the form. At the far left in any given line of information, you will find an objective number, the average percentage of students in the group who correctly answered the cluster of items, and the individual item numbers themselves. In addition, each item number is shown with the percentage of students in the national sample—“NT-P”—and in your group—“GP-P”—who correctly answered it. Such percentages conventionally are termed p-values.
When examining this report, a useful entry point is the average p-values—“AVG-P”—shown for your group. Each average p-value indicates the average percentage of students who correctly answered the cluster of items related to a given objective or skill. In effect, the average p-values present a concise summary of the group’s performance with respect to the assessed objectives/skills. Generally speaking, those in the lower range of the reported values represent weaker group performance while those in the upper range reflect stronger group performance. As you might expect, in this context terms such as “weaker” and “stronger” necessarily are relative terms whose significance will vary from one group to another.
In most settings the test user will find it necessary to turn to the individual item numbers and determine how the group’s p-values compare with the national p-values. Needless to say, such a procedure gives rise to a more comprehensive view of the group’s performance, which in turn allows one to develop a fuller appreciation of the average p-values. For example, in the sample it may be seen that objective 1 has an average p-value of 75. This value falls in the middle range of those reported for this group. Upon examining the individual data, however, it is clear that the group excelled on one of the items in the cluster, but trailed the national normative sample on the remaining three. It would be very worthwhile to inspect the latter test items in the test booklet and determine the specific content which posed such difficulty for most of the students in this group.
As should be apparent, one approaches the Group Item Analysis Report in much the same fashion as the Individual Item Analysis Report—that is, the various data must be analyzed using your knowledge of the pertinent factors as the primary frame of reference.
See explanation on page 25.
HSPT® Student Score Report
HIGH SCHOOL PLACEMENT TESTScholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Battery Composite (CMP) This score is a total of the Verbal, Quantitative, Reading, Language and Mathematicssections of the battery.
10.2
7 - 10
TCS
PercentileNational Percentiles
RDVB MT LNQT TBS CMPOP
To the parents or guardian of:
James Aragonman00001 ParkSt.Louis MO 63045
Dear James:
STS' High School Placement Test is a measure of your basic skills and your educational achievement. It was given so that you, yourparents, and your teachers can learn more about your preparation for high school.
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES
Verbal Skills (VB) This test measures how well you perform reasoning tasks involving the use of words. Your ability in this area isrelated to your performance in language, reading and various areas within social studies.
Quantitative Skills (QT) This test measures your ability to do reasoning problems involving numbers and quantities. This ability isrelated to performance in mathematics, sciences and other areas that deal with numbers and things.
Reading (RD) This test measures your ability to remember important ideas and significant details, recognize central thought or purpose,make logical inferences and understand vocabulary in context. Since good reading habits and skills are essential to learning, thinkingand problem solving, this score is usually related to your overall success in school.
Mathematics (MT) This test not only measures your ability to perform arithmetic operations and apply math concepts to solveproblems, but also your knowledge of important concepts and ability to reason. Your score on this test tells you how well you areprepared for high school mathematics.
Language (LN) This test measures your knowledge of capitalization, punctuation, grammar, spelling, usage and composition.
WHAT THE SCORE FOR EACH TEST MEANS
The scores reported above are "National Percentile Ranks." They tell what percentage of students had scores below yours in a nationalsample. If your Verbal Skills score is 55, for example, this means you did better than 55 percent of the students in the national sample.A percentile rank of 50 is exactly average.
Now is a good time, as you enter high school, to make the most of your special talents and to begin serious planning for your futureeducation and career.
:EG egaugnaL:EG scitamehtaM:EG gnidaeR
School:Cognitive Skills Basic Skills
(00001)
High
AboveAvg
Avg
BelowAvg
Low
Composite
8883 8783 92 9673 84 83NATL Percentiles
Grade: Form:
Elem: Choices:Codes
Total Cognitive Skills (TCS) This is a total of the Verbal Skills and Quantitative Skills subtests.
Cognitive Skills
Basic Skills
Total Basic Skills (TBS) This is a total of the Reading, Mathematics and Language subtests.
Optional Test (OP) The option test is a 40 item test in either Science, Mechanical Aptitude, or Religion.
James's
Cognitive Skills Quotient (CSQ) This score is a measure of a student's learning potential. It is an age-based norm rather than grade-based. The scale has a mean of 100 and an operational range of 55-145. Your CSQ score is 116.
Grade Equivalents (GE) These scores in the basic skills areas compare the student's performance with those of other grades. If onewere to test in January of grade 8, for example, and attain a Reading GE of 10.5, this means they scored as well on the grade eightmaterial as a mid-year grade ten student would have on the grade eight material. Your GE scores are:
4.010.01
08 S
175
Test Date: 11/22/08
SAMPLE SCHOOL
Student Score Report
1 - 23 - 45 - 6
11 - 1516 - 2324 - 3031 - 3940 - 4950 - 5960 - 6970 - 7677 - 8485 - 8990 - 9394 - 9596 - 97
9899
Report by -Total Grp
Other Codes:
34 151st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
(pg 1)
24
Student Score Report
The Student Score Report is a one-page report for an individual student and his/her parents or guardian. The top part of the report provides a graphic representation of the student's "National Percentile Rank" for each subskill taken, total basic skills, and the battery composite score.
Under “WHAT THE TEST MEASURES” you will find an explanation of what each subtest measures. The ‘Total Cognitive Skills,’ ‘Total Basic Skills,’ and ‘Battery Composite’ are also defined.
In the last section labeled “WHAT THE SCORE FOR EACH TEST MEANS” you will find an explanation on the students cognitive skills quotient (CSQ) and their grade equivalent (GE). A breakdown of the student’s grade equiva-lent scores are also given.
25
SUGGESTIONS
Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. welcomes any sugges-tions for improving this testing program. Many times we find that our best suggestions come from school personnel who have administered the tests and used them in parent conferences and student counseling. If you have sugges-tions, criticisms, or questions, please feel free to send them to us:
SCHOLASTIC TESTING SERVICE, INC.480 Meyer Road
Bensenville, Illinois 60106–1617
CAT# HP140012