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: sts@ststesting.com email: stlouis@ststesting.com 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