Table Of ContentSponsoring Committee: Professor 3rian E, Tomlinson (Chairman), Pro
fessor Charles E. Skinner and Associate Professor John C. Payne
THE PREDICTION OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS AMONG UNIVERSITY
FRESHMEN IN A SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Merritt W. Sanders
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the School of Education of
New York University
1950
i Aocwpt
StitjL 1 (j jrj^Q
|1 1 —« ilrfiii >nni 1 fl
no ' * < i r
f; (V/
.yuLoti 2 1 /fS ^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter PaSe
I The Study and Its Purpose................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem........................................................... 1
Specific Problems.......................................... . . ................... 2
D efinition of Terms................................................................ 3
D elim itations........................................................................... 3
Basic Assumptions.......................................................................... 14-
Significance of the Problem............. 5
II Survey of Related Literature.......................................................... 8
General. • • • 8
The Liultiphasic..................................................................... 19
The Scales of the Multiphasic............................................ 21
Researches Using the Multiphasic...................................... 25
The ACE................................................................................................ 31
The Subtests of the ACS ............................................ 32
Researches Using the ACE................................................. 3k
Summary............................................................................................... 38
III Procedure in Collecting Data.......................................................... UO
Personnel............................................... 2|0
Testing Procedure............... U5
Tests Administered....................................................................... U5
Instructor Reactions.................................................................... 50
Admission Averages.............................. $1
College Averages...................................... $2
Data Sheets....................................................................................... 33
IV Some Aspects of the Data and Treatment...................... 5U
In te r cor relations.......................................................................... 514-
Regression Equations........................................................... 6l
Tests for Linearity................................................................ 62
M ultiple Correlation.................................................................... 68
B i-serial Correlation. ........................... 73
V Results and Discussion............... 76
P ersonnel....................................................................... 76
Admission Averages.............. 78
College Averages for the First Year....................................... 79
A Comparison of Secondary School and College
Averages............... 80
Cor relations ....................... 81
Regression Equation................................................................ 82
ii
Chapter Page
V (continued)
Instructors' Ratings ............................... ........................... 82
Correl ations .................................................................................. 83
Intellectual A bility.......................... 86
ACE Q-scores............................ 88
ACE L-scores ..................................................... 89
ACE Correlations -with Secondary School A verages.... 90
The Lfultiphasic........................ 91
Correlations with College Averages,............................... 9h
Correlations 'with Secondary School Averages................ 95
Correlations with Intellectual A b ility ,..................... 96
Multiple Correlation................. 96
Summary ..................................................................... 99
VI Summary and Conclusions, .................................................................100
Summary. 100
Conclusions,...................... 105
VII Discussion and Recommendations, ............................. 109
Discussion. ................................................................ 109
Recommendations,.......................................... 113
Bibliography....,........................................................................................ 117
Appendix......................................... 12U
Appendix A: High Schools Represented in This Study
with the Number of Students from Each
School.......................................................... 125
Appendix B: Samples of Some of the M aterials and
Tests Used in This Study. ..................... 130
Memorandum to Instructors and Cur
riculum D irectors....................................... 130
ACE Manual of Instructions (19UU).............131
ACE Test Booklet (19UU)................................. 135
ACE Answer Sheet (l9iii-i.)................................ lij.2
Manual for the M ultiphasic.......................... 1U3
Supplementary Manual for the Multi
phasic............. 153
Multiphasic Test Booklet.............................. 157
Multiphasic Answer Sheet.............................. 165
Bibliography on the M ultiphasic................166
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. PaSe
I Studies in the Correlation, of Predictive Tests -with
Scholastic Success in College ................................... 37
II D istribution of I*?3 Students by Departments Wherein
M atriculated * U2
III The D istribution of 1*73 Students by Chronological
Age in Years .................................. U3
IV The Geographic Distribution of the Secondary Schools
and the Number of Students from Each Area . . . . Ul
V The D istribution of Percentile Ranks Obtained on the
Three Scores of the ACE by 1*73 Subjects • • • • • 1*7
VI The Distribution of T-scores Obtained on the Nine
Personality Scales of the Multiphasic by 1*67
Subjects h9
VII The D istribution of the Secondary School Averages of
1*73 Freshmen Entering the School of Education in
September, 191*7 51
VIII The D istribution of Marks Earned by 1*73 Students
during the Freshman Year in the School of Educa
tio n ............................................................. 53
IX Intercorrelations of Dependent and Independent Vari
ables ................... 58
X The Gomelation-ratios (Eta) of the Dependent and
Independent Variables • • • • * • • • • • . • • < > 61*
XI The X2 and P Values for the Correlation-ratios of
the Dependent and Independent Variable s • • • • • 66
XII The Coefficients of Multiple Correlation, Betas, and
b Weights Obtained by Adding Various Subtests to a
Battery for the Predictins of the Criterion • • • 70
XIII B i-serial Correlations of Instructors’ Ratings and
the Dependent and Independent Variables • • • • • 7l*
iv
CHAPTER I
THE STUDY AND ITS PURPOSE
Statement of the Problem
lhe problem is one of determining what measures or combinations of
measures on certain teats of intellectual ab ility and personality, and on
previous academic records, may be of significant value for predicting aca
demic success among School of Education Freshmen.
The purpose of the investigation is to ascertain whether a score ob
tained on a specific test of intellectual ability w ill later be reflected
in a certain level of academic success. Furthermore, it is desirable to
know whether or not the attainment of a given score on a test of personality
adjustment may be later seen to coincide with a certain degree of academic
success. In addition, there is a problem of determining any relationship
which may exist between a student's previous academic success and his ao«-
demio success during the first year of attendance in an institution for
professional teacher education.
In addition to the above problems, it is to be determined whether cer
tain combinations of measures of intellectual ab ility , of measures of per
sonality, and of measures of previous academic success may have any
consistency with later aoademic achievement.
The problem is one of determining the prognostic value of the Freshman
Tests of the School of Education as well as the value of previous academic
reoords in relation to academic success in the freshman year.
Specific Problems
Some of the specific problems which are inherent in the basic prob
lem are listed below.
1. To what extent are intellectual ability and college marks
related?
2. To what extent are intellectual ability and various aspeots of
personality related?
5. To what extent are certain aspects of personality and college
marks related?
4. To what extent are intellectual ability and secondary school
marks related?
5. To what extent are certain aspects of personality and secondary
school marks related?
6. To what extent are secondary school marks and college marks re-
1 ated?
7. To what extent are college marks and instructors' judgments of
the classroom adjustment of students related?
8. To what extent are intellectual ability and instructors' judg
ments of the classroom adjustment of students related?
9* To what extent are eertain aspects of personality and instructors'
judgments of the classroom adjustment of students related?
10. To what extent are secondary school marks and instructors' judg
ments of the classroom adjustment of students related?
11. Are certain of the above named variables in combination more use
ful in predicting college marks than any one of them taken independently?
-5-
Definltion of Terms
The Freshman Teat a—The Americ an Oouncil on Education Psychological
Examination for College Freshman and The Minnesota M ultiphasic Personality
Inventory.
Admission Average—That mean computed for marks earned in courses taken
in any school previous to admission in the School of Education of New York
University. While th is mean w ill be usually the high school average, there
may be represented at times marks from a preparatory school. I t w ill be
the "average" accepted by the Admissions O ffice of the School of Education
aa a part of the prospective Freshman's qualifications for admission.
The School of Education—The School of Eduoation of New York U niversity.
Level of Intellectual Ability'—-’This w ill be established as a score
achieved on The American Oouncil on Education Psychological Examination for
College Freshmen. Hereafter th is test w ill be referred to as the ACE, the
19^4 Edition of which is used in th is research. There are more recent edi
tions, but since one to two years must elapse before norms become available
the earlier edition is more useful in practice.
Aspects of Peraonallty—These w ill be established by scores obtained
on The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Hereafter th is te st
will be referred to as the M ultiphasic.
Academic Success--Traditionally th is has come to be synonymous with
teacher grades or marks. It w ill be so used in th is study, denoting a
mesh of marks earned by the students considered in th is study.
Del Imit at ions
The population consists of those individuals who were subjected to the
Freshman Tests and entered the School of Education as Freiimen in the Fall
-4-
of 1947. There have been excepted from this group all students who entered
the school with any advanced standing; such persons may not properly be
considered as entering Freshmen since they have been subjected to some sort
of previous college experience. This study is concerned with new Freshmen
and the effects of their experiences in this school alone.
Basic Assumptions
(a) Since they have been accepted, and since they represent consecu
tiv e admissions, the persons who oomprise the population of this study are
considered representative of contemporary entering Freshmen in the Sohool
of Education.
(b) It is assumed that the tests used and their norms are sufficiently
valid, reliab le, and significant to supply the kind of data needed in th is
research* Evidence of general acceptance of these tests for comparable
research purposes is provided in Chapter II of this study.
(c) While there are many other factors which enter into academic suc
cess, such as integrity, poise, industry, health and personal appearance,
it remains true that the academic record is currently the criterion for
the granting of the degree. It is the "average" which is consulted when
marks are considered in determining whether a student shall be advanced
or shall be dropped from school. These other factors are important, yet
they are not directly carried in the students1 transcripts. It is very
likely th at such factors influenoe the marks received to some varying ex
te n t, but th is is not a problem in this study. In this research it is
assumed th at marks earned at the University demonstrate the individual's
success in meeting the requirements for tiie degree.
-5-
Significance of the Problem
There is probably little doubt th at there is need for some advance
knowledge concerning a student's probable level of performance in the uni
versity. In the bibliography of th is report more than one hundred studies
1
concerning this matter are cited by Segel. These studies encompass a
number of years, reflect the findings of many investigators, and cover a
country-wide geographic area. Sogel, him self, makes a strong ease for the
need of more careful procedures in accepting students. "For effective
guidance of students into college work it is necessary to be able to make
some articulation between the students1 capacities and interests and the
2
program of studies offered in the college or university." Segel's ap
proach may be described as a progrsm of careful diagnosis of the prospective
student by means of the best available prognostic instruments.
Few are insensitive to the serious nature of a student's undertaking
as he enters a four-year program of professional training, or even any part
of it. The hopes and aspirations as well as the financial support of
several persons are usually at stake in th is enterprise. With all th at is
involved in college entrance it seems mandatory th at a university take
every measure for the prevention of any individual's aspiring to its degree
ill-advisedly. On the other hand, the university should be osreful lest
it turn away any who might profit by its training.
Faculties should be used fully, but they should not be wasted by al
lowing their use by those who cannot or w ill not p ro fit therefrom. O dell's
statement is as true now as when he made it:
IT David Segel, "Prediction of Sucoess in College," Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Offioe, United States Office of Eduoation,
Bulletin No. 1J, pp. 91-98*
2. Ibid,, p. 1.
