Assess thyself

[R2elk]

@R2elk just curious (if you don't mind sharing), did you ever take the old SAT officially? 26 raw on the antonyms test with old SAT items is pretty high, and I'm curious if it aligned with your verbal score if you took it.

There were two different tests back then. I know I took the PSAT as it or the other test whose acronym I cannot remember were required for college admittance.

What those scores were is long since beyond my memory recall data as that was in the 1960s. I did score high on the PSAT.

 

[CarpCharacin]

There were two different tests back then. I know I took the PSAT as it or the other test whose acronym I cannot remember were required for college admittance.

What those scores were is long since beyond my memory recall data as that was in the 1960s. I did score high on the PSAT.

The old PSAT was very similar to the old SAT but shorter I think, though I'm guessing that you later took the old SAT in order to apply to college, assuming you didn't take the ACT instead, which was less popular and more academic in nature. If you scored like 620+ on the old SAT verbal, it's probably consistent with the antonyms score. And antonyms performance does seem to drop off with age after a certain point, so I doubt your score was inflated relative to what you'd have gotten when younger. All of the various SAT V item types seemed to be heavily intercorrelated, and antonyms were by far the best item type in terms of item efficiency (IIRC how much information can be obtained about an examinee per item, but I could be mistaken). The analogies are my favorite, but I'm biased since I seem to be better at the analogies lol. Though the analogies do seem to derive their difficulty from something other than vocab difficulty, so hopefully they're more of a reasoning test despite the fact that some items do use hard vocab.

Man, it sucks how crappy they made testing since the old SAT was discontinued in 1994. It was definitely driven by political pressure, and I think it had the opposite effect than the revisions were purportedly intended to bring about, as the old SAT depended less on quality of schooling due to testing very little specific academic knowledge.

 

[casportpony]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/olivia_bridge/is-your-christmas-dinner-australian-or-american

 

[CarpCharacin]

View attachment 2961509

All these fake tests
Real Testing is most interesting

 

[CarpCharacin]

All these fake tests
Real Testing is most interesting

Though to be fair, there are diminishing returns on how much information continuing to take real tests (both cognitive and personality) will yield because they're genuinely reliable and valid, lol

 

[R2elk]

The old PSAT was very similar to the old SAT but shorter I think, though I'm guessing that you later took the old SAT in order to apply to college, assuming you didn't take the ACT instead, which was less popular and more academic in nature. If you scored like 620+ on the old SAT verbal, it's probably consistent with the antonyms score. And antonyms performance does seem to drop off with age after a certain point, so I doubt your score was inflated relative to what you'd have gotten when younger. All of the various SAT V item types seemed to be heavily intercorrelated, and antonyms were by far the best item type in terms of item efficiency (IIRC how much information can be obtained about an examinee per item, but I could be mistaken). The analogies are my favorite, but I'm biased since I seem to be better at the analogies lol. Though the analogies do seem to derive their difficulty from something other than vocab difficulty, so hopefully they're more of a reasoning test despite the fact that some items do use hard vocab.

Man, it sucks how crappy they made testing since the old SAT was discontinued in 1994. It was definitely driven by political pressure, and I think it had the opposite effect than the revisions were purportedly intended to bring about, as the old SAT depended less on quality of schooling due to testing very little specific academic knowledge.

It is the ACT that I never took.

 

[casportpony]

All these fake tests
Real Testing is most interesting

Too time-consuming.

 

[CarpCharacin]

It is the ACT that I never took.

The old SAT was a better ability test than the old ACT, but the old ACT was certainly quite good compared to today's tests. I found a factor analysis from the 1990s that reported that the old ACT composite loaded (correlated with) g / the general factor at .870, while the old SAT verbal loading .804 and the math / quantitative was .698. Probably should link it for the sake of giving credit, but I can't remember the name. It's unfortunate that it didn't include a loading for old SAT composite, but I imagine that it'd have been as high or higher than the ACT loading, and the general factor loadings of gold-standard cognitive tests are apparently about the same. The more general, less academic nature of the old SAT probably makes it a better test of general ability.

 

[CarpCharacin]

Too time-consuming.

The antonyms test I posted takes 10 minutes max, and probably takes less for most.

 

[Kiki]

The antonyms test I posted takes 10 minutes max, and probably takes less for most.

That's the one that I failed right?