Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (Peter): Wonderlic Personnel Test

To ascertain the suitability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test for inclusion in a battery of Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER) parallel forms were administered daily, without coaching or feedback, for 19 consecutive work days to 13 Navy enlisted men who were high school graduates. Over Days 1 to 10 and 18 to 19, unique forms were administered; forms were repeated over Days 11 to 17. The mean score significantly increased from about 23 to 29 amounting to 0.7 standard score units. Subsequent to Day 4, the change in performance was linear and accounted for 57% of the Days 5 to 19 variation. The standard deviations were homogeneous over all repeated and unrepeated days, and the reliability correlations were differentially stable across all days, with a task definition of r = .70. The group mean increase of more than 21 percentile points on the Wonderlic has implications for selection and counseling. It is noteworthy that the average subject in our group scored equal to “stenographer” or “draftsman” on the first occasion but typical of “engineer” or “accountant” on the last. It was concluded that the Wonderlic is suitable for inclusion in PETER.

[1]  R. Kennedy,et al.  The Stroop as a performance evaluation test for environmental research. , 1982 .

[2]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Grammatical Reasoning: A Stable Performance Yardstick , 1981 .

[3]  Anne Anastasi,et al.  Coaching, test sophistication, and developed abilities. , 1981 .

[4]  C. Dodrill.  An economical method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults. , 1981, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[5]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER): Collected Papers. , 1981 .

[6]  Samuel Messick,et al.  Time and Method in Coaching for the SAT. , 1981 .

[7]  Testing: concepts, policy, practice, and research. , 1981, The American psychologist.

[8]  A. C. Bittner,et al.  Development of Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (Peter): Arithmetic Computation , 1980 .

[9]  Arthur Whimbey,et al.  Teaching Critical Reading and Analytical Reasoning in Project SOAR. , 1980 .

[10]  C. Dodrill.  Rapid evaluation of intelligence in adults with epilepsy. , 1980, Epilepsia.

[11]  J H Steiger,et al.  Testing Pattern Hypotheses On Correlation Matrices: Alternative Statistics And Some Empirical Results. , 1980, Multivariate behavioral research.

[12]  A. Jensen,et al.  Bias in Mental Testing , 1980 .

[13]  J. Carroll.  Individual Difference Relations in Psychometric and Experimental Cognitive Tasks , 1980 .

[14]  J. H. Steiger.  Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. , 1980 .

[15]  Marshall B. Jones.  Stabilization and Task Definition in a Performance Test Battery , 1979 .

[16]  A. Harris.  Readings That Made a Difference: Those Who Taught Me about Reading. , 1979 .

[17]  A. C. Bittner,et al.  Development of Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER): Arithmetic Computation , 1979 .

[18]  D. Catron,et al.  Test-retest gains in WAIS scores after four retest intervals. , 1979, Journal of clinical psychology.

[19]  O. K. Buros,et al.  The seventh mental measurements yearbook , 1973 .

[20]  C. Hulin,et al.  Two Explanations of Temporal Changes in Ability-Skill Relationships: A Literature Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1972 .

[21]  Seymour Geisser,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1963 .

[22]  A. Anastasi.  Individual differences. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  David Lindley,et al.  Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research. , 1953 .

[24]  R. Gundlach.  The effects of practice on the correlations of three mental tests. , 1926 .

[25]  E. Thorndike.  Practice Effects in Intelligence Tests. , 1922 .