Aptitude Testing

Aptitude testing refers to assessments designed to predict an individual's potential to learn or acquire new skills and knowledge, rather than measuring what they have already learned. These tests serve as indicators of a student’s capability in various academic and vocational fields, evaluating abilities such as verbal, mathematical, spatial, and mechanical skills. Aptitude tests have evolved from intelligence tests, which were historically prevalent but faced criticism for their perceived bias and implications of fixed intelligence. Unlike achievement tests that assess current knowledge and skills, aptitude tests focus on the potential for future learning, providing insights that can inform educational and occupational decisions.

Aptitude tests come in various forms, including group assessments commonly used in schools and individual tests that provide a more personalized evaluation. These assessments can be instrumental in identifying gifted students and informing curriculum planning. However, they are not without controversy; concerns have been raised about their predictive validity and potential misuse, particularly in reinforcing biases against certain demographic groups. As society increasingly values diverse forms of intelligence and ability, the role of aptitude testing continues to be scrutinized and adapted to better serve educational needs and promote equity.

Published in: 2021

By: Merritt, R. D.

Subject Terms

Aptitude Testing

Abstract

Aptitude tests or ability tests are used to predict students' future performance in a new situation or setting. They measure students' potential capacity or ability to learn or acquire knowledge and skills when given an opportunity. They have a common origin and history with intelligence tests, which were the standard measure of academic aptitude for over a century. Because of controversies over the use of intelligence tests in public schools and the prevalent negative connotations associated with intelligence-quotient, or IQ measurement, aptitude tests have assumed a more prominent role within the last few decades.

Overview

Introduction. An aptitude test's main purpose or function is "not to measure what has been learned, but what can be learned" (Karmel & Karmel, 1978, p. 219). As such, they are designed to predict students' future learning, behavioral, or performance outcomes. However, because it is impossible to isolate aptitude from past learning experiences, aptitude tests may indirectly measure what has been learned as well as what can be learned (Borg & Gall, 1989; Gage & Berliner, 1988; Karmel & Karmel, 1978; McMillan, 2001; National Academy Press, 2001; Weber, 1991).

Aptitude tests aim to measure specific kinds of abilities across a wide range of academic and occupational fields. Among the most commonly used aptitude tests are those measuring verbal, mathematical, spatial, mechanical, and clerical aptitudes or abilities (Borg & Gall, 1989; Gage & Berliner, 1988).

Standardized aptitude tests or assessments are also referred to as ability tests—tests that assess academic, learning, and cognitive abilities (McMillan, 2001). Aptitude tests are quite often compared, contrasted, and occasionally confused with other types of assessments. Fine distinctions and differentiations can be made for example between aptitude tests and intelligence tests. Intelligence tests, which were a precursor to aptitude tests, are meant to measure an individual's innate, unchanging intellectual capacities; aptitude tests, on the other hand, do not measure immutable, innate capacities, but rather an individual's potential to improve upon existing capacities (Karmel & Karmel, 1978; McMillan, 2001).

Aptitude tests are often compared to achievement tests as well. Achievement tests are designed to assess and measure current levels of performance (i.e. the skills and knowledge currently possessed by students in a particular subject area). Achievement tests must be high in 'taughtness'—what is actually taught in the classroom by teachers—and in content validity. Ultimately, though, achievement tests measure what an individual has learned both inside and outside of school, as well as his or her inherited academic aptitudes (Gage & Berliner, 1988; McMillan, 2001; National Academy Press, 2001; Popham, 2003; Weber, 1991).

Aptitude tests can also be confused with interest tests. Interest tests are inventories that are used primarily in a vocational counseling setting to assist individuals in making a career choice. By the end of high school, student interests are typically stable enough to permit reliable measurement and valid prediction. A student's individual responses on an interest test are compared to those of successful members of different occupational groups to determine which occupations would best suit the student's interests. Two examples of interest inventories are the Kuder Preference Record and the Strong Vocational Interest Inventory (Karmel & Karmel, 1978; Weber, 1991).

In contrast, aptitude tests are used for making educational and occupational decisions and for selection and placement in schools, colleges, government, business, and industry (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Stuit, 1950; Weber, 1991). While aptitude tests are norm-referenced and do provide information for student counseling and guidance, their results are used differently. According to their scores, students are placed in special classes and are treated differently in regular classes.

Definition. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (2003) defines aptitude as "a student's capability or potential for performing a particular task or skill" (p. 225). Aptitude can also be defined as a student's capacity, or "suitability," to benefit from training in a certain field or subject. Aptitude is sometimes referred to as "academic aptitude" or "scholastic aptitude" because students seem to be able to develop this ability in school (Haladyna, 1997; Hursh & Kerns, 1988; Kirk & Gallagher, 1989).

Aptitude and ability are often mistakenly used synonymously with achievement and intelligence. Aptitude and ability differ from achievement in that the former are developed over a long time period whereas achievement is occurs within a relatively short time period. The psychological trait of intelligence is so elusive that even psychologists have generally defined it as that which is measured by intelligence tests. However, whereas the term intelligence places the focus on innate, inherited characteristics, the terms aptitude and ability communicate both innate and experiential influences (Haladyna, 1997; McMillan, 2001).

History. Intelligence tests were, in fact, the standard measure of academic aptitude for over a century with early aptitude tests like the Stanford-Binet Test based on Alfred Binet's theory of intelligence. However, because the term "intelligence" conveys at least to some, if not many, an immutable characteristic, "aptitude tests" are no longer referred to and strictly interpreted as "intelligence tests" (Gage & Berliner, 1988; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2003).

Intelligence tests and aptitude tests had been used for some time before the French experimental psychologists Alfred Binet (1857–1911) and Théodore Simon developed the standardized Binet or Binet-Simon Test. This testing instrument, published in 1905, was based on Binet's intelligence scale and allowed individuals' intelligences to be compared to a norm (Merriam-Webster Inc., 1988; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992). In 1916, the test was revised by the U.S. psychologist Lewis Madison Terman (1877–1956) to become the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Terman also developed the "intelligence quotient" or IQ, a number indicating an individual's level of mental development (Merriam-Webster Inc., 1988; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992).

World War I was a major factor that spurred growth in the measurement movement. With its massive mobilization of manpower, the military needed a way to quickly and easily determine which men were suited for which branches of service. Group intelligence tests were developed to fill this need. The U. S. Army commissioned the then president of the American Psychological Association, Robert M. Yerkes (1876–1956), to devise a group-administered test called the 'Army Alpha' to help identify recruits most likely to succeed in the officer-training program.

The Alpha assessment strategy represented the first widespread use of a norm-referenced or comparative testing approach. The Alpha was both a group intelligence test and an aptitude test, or "predictor test", in that it was able to accurately predict the likely success of recruits in the officer-training program. High Alpha-scorers were sent to the officer-training facilities, the average Alpha-scorers were sent to fight the war in the trenches, and the low Alpha-scorers were encouraged to leave the service. With this first mass-scale psychological testing program, the military also discovered that large numbers of young men had educational deficiencies, especially among rural youth, and about a quarter of all recruits were judged to be illiterate. The Army Alpha served as the template for almost all later standardized testing in the U.S.A., irrespective of whether these tests were to function as aptitude tests or an achievement tests (Borg, 1987; Popham, 2001; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992).

Within a decade after the war, students were being classified, compared, and assigned to educational programs on the basis of tests meant to assess individual differences and diagnose learning difficulties. The educational tests that began to appear after World War I were not only intelligence-focused aptitude tests, but also achievement tests, like the Stanford Achievement Tests first published in 1923 (Popham, 2001; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992).

In the 1920s, Terman, Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949), and other psychologists involved in the development of the measurement movement established a cornerstone of educational psychology with their research into human intelligence. Most notably, Thorndike developed scales for measuring achievement in arithmetic, spelling, language, and other subject areas (Merriam-Webster Inc., 1988; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992). By the 1930s, the measurement movement had become a permanent part of American education. At that time, about 200 aptitude tests had been designed and developed (Toops & Kuder, 1935; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992).

Aptitude testing was also used during World War II. The Army General Classification Test (AGCT), a mental ability test, was taken by over 12 million soldiers and marines to help identify candidates for specialty and officer training. The AGCT was developed in 1940 by the Personnel Research Section of the Adjutant General's Office in the Defense Department. The first differential aptitude test battery was also developed during the 1940s (Harrell, 1992; Stuit, 1950).

Modern theorists like Robert Sternberg and Howard Gardner advocate a multifactor view of intelligence—the view that many factors and various human cognitive abilities are involved. Sternberg (1985) developed the so-called "triarchic theory of intelligence," or three aspects of intellectual functioning, which included the internal world of the individual, experiences of the individual, and external contextual abilities. Sternberg's internal world of the individual was further divided into metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition components. Howard Gardner's (1993) theory postulates multiple intelligences—for example, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, linguistic, and bodily/kinesthetic (Haladyna, 1997; McMillan, 2001).

Psychologists during the twentieth century struggled to define "aptitude" and "ability," let alone find ways to measure them. Today, the measurement of "aptitude" and "ability," or "aptitudes" and "abilities," continues to be a major challenge. Theories relating to aptitude and ability changed during the last two decades to emphasize new capabilities and conceptualizations. Recent years have also seen increased interest in tests that measure special aptitudes and personality factors. Aptitude tests have not only been widely used in school counseling and vocational guidance as well as by some companies for staff selection, but they have also become prevalent in the college admissions process. The SAT and the ACT, the two premier college-entrance examinations, are also aptitude tests. The SAT has focused on measuring high-school students' verbal and quantitative aptitudes for over three-quarters of a century. The ACT, which has been around for more than half a century, differs from the SAT in its emphasis on subject knowledge rather than general aptitude (Haladyna, 1997; McMillan, 2001; National Academy Press, 2001; Popham, 2006).

Applications

Aptitude tests are often classified on the basis of specific abilities, related subject-matter areas, or occupational fields. There are a variety of types of aptitude tests: scholastic or academic, prognostic tests (for example, school readiness and reading readiness), and vocational tests. Specific school-subject aptitude tests are available to measure students' aptitudes in mathematics, foreign languages, art, and music. Special aptitude tests and batteries include vocational and professional types. Aptitude tests are also able to measure occupational skills such as sensory capacities, and clerical, mechanical, or salesmanship aptitudes (Borg & Gall, 1989; Karmel & Karmel, 1978; Stuit, 1950).

Group Tests & Assessments. Most of the aptitude tests administered in public schools are group tests or tests in which students respond simultaneously to written questions. Group aptitude tests are used mainly as screening devices to identify students whose abilities deviate substantially from the norm. Besides the SAT and ACT exams, some examples of multiple-choice group aptitude assessments that allow for efficient machine scoring are the Cognitive Abilities Test, the Differential Aptitude Tests, and the General Aptitude Test Battery (Borg & Gall, 1989; McMillan, 2001).

The Cognitive Abilities Test (Multilevel Edition) or CAT, for grades 3 to 12 is a group-aptitude assessment that measures aptitudes through nine different subtests grouped into three categories: verbal, nonverbal, and quantitative. The CAT provides an overall composite score but not separate scores for the nine subtests (McMillan, 2001).

Validity studies have shown that the Differential Aptitude Tests or DATs, another test battery used for counseling high-school students, are useful in predicting students' scholastic success and vocational choice. The aptitudes measures by the DATs include numerical ability, verbal reasoning, abstract reasoning, space relations, language use, and spelling (Borg & Gall, 1989).

The U.S. Employment Service developed the General Aptitude Test Battery or GATB to measure a whole host of aptitudes that include intelligence; numerical, verbal, and spatial abilities; form perception; motor coordination; and manual dexterity. In the case of the GATB, test-takers' score profiles can be compared with the profiles of successful individuals in various occupations to determine the types of work for which test takers may have the required aptitudes (Borg & Gall, 1989).

Individual Tests & Assessments. Individual aptitude tests or assessments are used by train test examiners to assess individuals. Because individual aptitude tests measure abilities through a one-on-one test administration, the results are typically more informative and more dependable. The examiner can take into consideration personal variables such as the examinee's apparent motivation and persistence. However, since individual aptitude tests measure different skills, it is difficult to compare scores from two or more tests. Individual aptitude tests are primarily used to identify educational disabilities may qualify students for placement in special-education service programs. In order to appropriately interpret the results of individual aptitude tests, evaluators must be clear on what the scores mean. Additional diagnostic tests or assessments can be administered for students with suspected deficiencies. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Scales, which have both been used for a long time in schools, are individual aptitude tests that focus solely on abilities to provide global measures of intelligence in a few major areas. The Kaufman Assessment Battery and the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised are individual aptitude assessments that include both aptitude and achievement scales, allow direct comparisons to be made between aptitude and achievement, and provide a more complete picture for diagnostic purposes (McMillan, 2001).

The Mental Measurements Yearbook series supplies detailed information on different aptitude tests as well as other types of assessments. It includes critical reviews of many measures and provides bibliographies to assist researchers in locating relevant published tests (Borg & Gall, 1989).

Viewpoints

Advantages. Aptitude tests measure a broader set of skills than achievement tests. They have practical utility in identifying a student's performance level or potential in functional academics. Aptitude tests measure well-defined skills such as problem-solving ability, and they provide relatively quick screening information in certain subject areas and aptitudes (Hursh & Kerns, 1988; McMillan, 2001).

The measure of academic aptitude can inform schools and teachers about how their students are performing in relation to their potential. Aptitude tests assist teachers in understanding the general ability levels of students so they can design appropriate instruction and group students more effectively. In addition, aptitude tests allow schools to understand and plan appropriate instruction for individual students. Teachers can use their knowledge of students' special abilities to adjust their teaching, assignments, explanations, and overall instruction so as to challenge the more capable and avoid frustrating and discouraging the less able (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Karmel & Karmel, 1978; Kirk & Gallagher, 1989; McMillan, 2001).

Aptitude tests thus offer a basis for sound curriculum planning as well as for personal student counseling. Aptitude tests provide a new dimension to students' declared interests and teacher observations to help guide them to unique talents and potentials. Aptitude tests can be used to identify gifted minority and other students. Aptitude tests for such abilities as spatial visualization and memory are especially amenable to automated testing using advanced computer technologies (Bernal, 1980; Hunt & Pellegrino, 1985; Karmel & Karmel, 1978).

Disadvantages. Aptitude tests may not predict future achievement any better than achievement tests, and the distinctions between the two types of tests are not always evident. Students may not be able to demonstrate proficiency in certain abilities on traditional paper-and-pencil tests but, on the other hand, be able to work through tasks that are presented in a more realistic context. In any case, an evaluator must constantly supplement information garnered through aptitude tests with information gained through simulated or hands-on work samples (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Hursh & Kerns, 1988).

Aptitude tests can be misused to make subjective judgments about students' potentials, make judgments about the quality of teaching, and make comparisons without consideration of the differences in school populations. Aptitude tests that influence teachers' expectations of students can do great harm. The measurement of any student characteristic considered an aptitude may serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy—a prophecy that teachers may unconsciously fulfill for students who have scored poorly on this type of test. Teachers may act on their expectations and inappropriately treat some students differently (Gage & Berliner, 1988; Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 1992).

Measures of aptitude, as measures of achievement, are based on particular conceptions of what is right or what is fair. Standardized aptitude tests and IQ tests have been misused and have caused irreparable harm to ethnic-minority students by damaging their self-images and life chances. Culturally biased aptitude and IQ tests have caused a disproportionate number of minorities to be placed into 'special education.' These tests have "channeled" certain groups of students into 'slow tracks,' and special-education classes and have "screened" them out of higher education and jobs (Stevens & Wood, 1987).

Further Insights

Predictive Validity. Much of the research related to aptitude testing relates to the predictive validity of aptitude tests. Since aptitude tests are primarily concerned with the prediction of future behavior, their predictive validity is particularly important. After an aptitude measure has been shown to relate to later performance, it can be used for a number of school-related activities such as class assignment, counseling, or identifying students who require special help (Borg, 1987; Borg & Gall, 1989; McMillan, 2001; Popham, 2003).

Prediction studies are used in the public schools to develop various kinds of aptitude measures such as algebraic aptitude and reading readiness. Prediction studies are concerned with measuring one or more variables that can be used to predict some future event, which is called a criterion variable. This type of predictive validity, which is called criterion-related evidence of validity, or simply criterion validity, is concerned with whether aptitude tests actually predict what they are intended to predict. Criterion-related evidence of validity is collected, for example, by following a group of high-school students, who have previously taken an aptitude test, throughout their college careers to determine if predictions based on the aptitude test were accurately predictive of the criterion. If the predictive test scores exhibit a strong relationship with students' subsequent college grade-point averages, then this constitutes criterion-related evidence that supports the validity of score-based inferences about the high-school students' probable academic success in college. Both the SAT and the ACT college-entrance exams and aptitude tests have a concern with criterion-related evidence of validity: they must have this evidence in order to prove validity for selection and placement of students. Research has shown that neither the SAT nor the ACT is a definitive determiner of students' intellectual abilities; neither can be used as the sole criteria for predicting a student's success in college or a career (Borg, 1987; Gage & Berliner, 1988; Popham, 2003; Popham, 2006).

Terms & Concepts

Achievement Tests: Tests which are used to assess and measure the skills and knowledge recently learned and currently possessed by students in a particular subject area.

Aptitude: An ability to acquire knowledge and skills when given an opportunity to learn.

Aptitude Tests: Also called ability tests, these tests are designed to predict students' later or future learning, behavioral, or performance outcomes in a given situation or setting.

Batteries: Groups of several tests that are comparable, the results of which are used individually, in combination, and/or totally (Karmel & Karmel, 1978).

Criterion Validity: The relative degree to which the score of a test predicts a student's score or performance in some other area, situation, or setting.

Diagnostic Tests: Tests which are used to determine students' specific areas of weakness and/or strength.

Equating Groups: A process in which two experimental groups of students which are to receive different treatments (e.g., exposure to two teaching methods) are matched on aptitude prior to the experiment.

Group Tests: Tests which are administered to more than one person at one time.

Individual Tests: Tests which are given to only one person at a time; an example is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ): A number which indicates an individual's normative and approximate level of mental development.

Intelligence Tests: Tests which provide an estimate of general intellectual ability and cognitive functioning by sampling students' performance on a variety of tasks.

Interest Tests: Tests which inventory students' preferred activities so as to help them make effective career choices.

Multiple Intelligences: Conceptual theory developed by Howard Gardner postulating that many highly distinct and different abilities (e.g., interpersonal, linguistic, musical) make up human intelligence.

Norm-Referenced: Assessments in which an individual's or group's scores are compared with those of other individuals or groups who compose a norm group.

Predictive Validity: The validity of a test used to predict performance in some other area, situation, or setting.

Prognostic Tests: Tests which are used to predict future success or failure in a specific academic subject, area, or field.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A prediction which, if believed, tends to come true; for example, when a teacher overtly or covertly communicates to a student that he or she will fail, then the student may not try as hard and thus fail; or, conversely, if a teacher communicates that a student will succeed, then he or she may work harder and thus succeed.

Bibliography

Appelrouth, J. I., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2017). Preparing for the SAT: A review. College & University, 92(1), 2–17. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=122000490&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bernal, E. M. (1980). Methods of identifying gifted minority students. Princeton, NJ: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation.

Bezruczko, N. (2000). Thurstone: Measurement for a new science. Popular Measurement, 3 , 7-11.

Borg, W. R. (1987). Applying educational research: A practical guide for teachers. New York, NY: Longman.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New York, NY: Longman.

Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test items to evaluate higher order thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Harrell, T. W. (1992). Some history of the Army General Classification Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 , 875-878.

Hunt, E., & Pellegrino, J. (1985). Using interactive computing to expand intelligence testing: A critique and prospectus. Intelligence, 9 , 207-236.

Hursh, N. C., & Kerns, A. F. (1988). Vocational evaluation in special education. Boston, MA: College Hill Press.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (2003). The student evaluation standards: How to improve evaluations of students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Author.

Karmel, L. J., & Karmel, M. O. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in the schools. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Kirk, S. A., & Gallagher, J. J. (1989). Educating exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Matthews, M. S., & Kirsch, L. (2011). Evaluating gifted identification practice: Aptitude testing and linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 155-180. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60609800&site=ehost-live

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press, Inc.

Merriam-Webster Inc. (1988). Webster's new biographical dictionary. Springfield, MA: Author.

National Academy Press. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: Author.

Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator's call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Popham, W. J. (2006). Branded by a test. Educational Leadership, 63 , 86-87. Retrieved October 01, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20472874&site=ehost-live

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stevens, E., Jr., & Wood, G. H. (1987). Justice, ideology and education: An introduction to the social foundations of education. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Publishing Company.

Stuit, D. B. (1950). Construction and educational significance of aptitude tests. Review of Educational Research, 20 , 27-37.

Toops, H., & Kuder, G. F. (1935). Measures of aptitude. Review of Educational Research, 5 , 215-228.

Warne, R. T. (2014). Using above-level testing to track growth in academic achievement in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 3-23. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92969528&site=ehost-live

Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (1992). Foundations of American education. New York, NY: Merrill/Macmillan Publishing Company.

Weber, A. L. (1991). Introduction to psychology. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Aptitude Testing

On this Page

Subject Terms

Aptitude Testing

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Viewpoints

Further Insights

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading