Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 22:28 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 22:28

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
1
Kudos
Does anyone else want to share their insights into test design?
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 2709
Own Kudos [?]: 1537 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Hey Hjort, I did find your review helpful :) . However, I do not have any insights into it yet. Maybe soon enough...
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Another important issue for adapative and pencil-paper examinations is the apparent variability of scores. Suppose two students receive a 500 each the first time they take the exam. Student A then receives a 520 on the second exam and sees this score as proof that her study techniques are working. Student B takes the exam again and scores 480 and thus believes that his study techniques are actually causing his skills to decrease. Unfortunately, all of these scores are consistent with the two students having a true score of about 500. Since the SEM is nearly 30 points, we would expect about two thirds of students to receive scores within 30 points of their true score on any given administration of the test. Thus, it would not be a great surprise for a student to take the GMAT on Saturday and receive a 570 and then receive a 600 the next Monday. Indeed, given a large number of test takers, we should not be surprised to see several students with observed scores 50 or more points above their true score.

Many of the impressive claims made by "test preparation" companies do not fare well when one considers the impact of the inherent variability of observed scores.

Hjort
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Hjort's Empirical Score Estimator

(Vscaled score + Q scaled score)*7.35 + 70.3; (ROUND, -1)

This estimator is best suited for the 620-720 or so range which is probably of greatest interest to test takers here.

This predictor is purely empirical, it should not be construed as the product of theoretical derivation.

Hjort
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
2
Kudos
There is a common argument that the GMAT is irrelevant to MBA admissions since schools can use so many other admissions factors in making their choices.

It is crucial to remember, however, that the GMAT has far more predictive power than most other admissions criteria. For instance, the median correlation of V,Q,andAWA scores with first year MBA grades was .42 while the median correlation of undergrad grades with first year MBA was only .25. When the GMAT and undergrad grades are combined the correlation increases to 0.47. Thus, assertions by schools that they weigh all admissions factors equally should be viewed skeptically (of course the correlation varies from school to school).

The median correlation for undergrad GPA and first year MBA is 0.25 as corrected above.

Hjort
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
1
Kudos
A similar study of Executive MBA programs has revealed that the median correlation between first year MBA GPA and GMAT score was 0.49. The correlation between undergrad grades and first year MBA was only .22.

The GMAT V score alone had a correlation of 0.38 while the Q score alone had a correlation of 0.44. Even the often marginalized AWA score had a correlation similar to that of the undergrad grades (.22).

What might be the most interesting revelation of this study is the limited predictive value of some other variables. For instance, the number of year of work experience had virtually no association with academic success (correlation of -.02) while entering base salary was extremely weak (correlation of .09).

While it is important to stress that these data are for EMBA programs, it is intriguing how the other variables have even less predictive power than the AWA alone!


Hjort
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Hi [#permalink]
By chance i happened to check these posts today only. Interesting findings. I would like to know how these studies were formulated. Are you referring to a simple regression on Grades versus say GMAT score? What were the partial regression coefficients. Were they significant?
What was the goodness of fit when you used all the variables - GMAT score, AWA, Grades, Work experience and salary.

I also had a feeling that work experience might infact have a negative correlation with Grades....
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
All good questions regarding the admissions validity studies. I have only been able to read very brief summaries of these studies so I cannot comment on them in any detail. They appear to be based on simple regressions. Further, the overall goodness of fit for the multiple regression model is probably not great (but still pretty good when compared to other variables used to predict academic success).

Hjort
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Some readers (not many) might find the following information about GMAT scores interesting:

c. 1980 a score of 700 was the 99th percentile and the average score was only 462.

Historically, the total score was calculated from the sum of the raw scores of each section. The scaled score for V or Q was not used directly in the calculation of the total scaled score.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
I have been looking through the Hjort Test Library and found some interesting tidbits from the early 1980s. In this set of tests, the order of difficulty was extremely strict, most sections started with "Easy" questions, had many medium questions in the middle, and some hard questions at the end. In a few sections there were very easy questions at the beginning and a few very hard at the end. Not surprisingly, the test with the most very difficult Quant questions had the highest quant scaled score.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
The subscores of the GMAT have exhibited some interesting trends. For instance, the mean for the Q section from 6/1994 through 3/1997 was 32 with an SD of 9. The mean for 1/2000 through the end of 2002 was 35 with an SD of 10. Thus, a score of 41 which was once one SD above the mean is now only about half an SD above. Comparing the same two periods the verbal subscore mean fell from 28 to 27 with the SD remaining at 9. At the same time, the mean for the AWA has increased from 3.8 to 4.0 while the SD increased from 0.9 to 1.0.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
1
Kudos
Some interesting insights into changes in test scores-
It appears that in both nominal scores and percentiles the lower edge of the GMAT distrubtion have increased greatly over the past twenty years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s some of the most selective schools still enrolled at least 10% of their students with scores near average. Not surprisingly, the difference between the score of the 90th percentile and 10th percentile matriculant has decreased considerably as well.


Duke early 80s had a 10th percentile of 500 whereas in the early 2000s it was about 650. Thus, the lower edge a Duke went from about average to considerably above average in 20 years. Likewise, the center of the distribution increased about 150 points from 550 to 700.

Columbia had a difference of 180 points in the early 1980s from the 90th to the 10th. Twenty years later the spread was only some 90 points.

Yale had a difference of 180 that has since fallen to about 100.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
1
Kudos
Is anybody still reading this thread? Is it still useful?
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 68
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
ive been following along. its amazing to me how much scores and percentile especially in quant have increased.
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
I extend a hearty thank you to jackson24nj for letting me know that people are still reading this interminable thread.

Hjort

Originally posted by Hjort on 10 Feb 2005, 13:27.
Last edited by Hjort on 23 Feb 2005, 10:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: INDIA
Send PM
A good thread [#permalink]
hi hjort,
i read your thread and it good, you will be happy to know it sticky now. keep posting. i like the inforatmion abt the test. i would like to ask you which is the most appropriate day to take test to maximise score :-D
-regards,
User avatar
CEO
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 3249
Own Kudos [?]: 515 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
[#permalink]
Another interesting trend over the last few decades has been score convergence across clusters at the 90th percentile. Thus, scores have not only converged within schools as the range from the 10th to the 90th has fallen, but scores have also converged across schools. This is probably a result of the ceiling effect in that there is little room for the 90th percentile of the ultra elite schools to increase.

It should come as little surprise that many of the elite schools caught up with the 90th percentile of the ultraelites. For example, Duke's 90th was more than 100 points behind Columbia's 90th in the early 1980s but in the early 2000s the 90th percentile values of the two schools were the same. Likewise, UCLA and UC Berkeley had a 90th some 50 points below that of Chicago GSB in the early 1980s. Some two decades later, the 90th percentile at the three schools was essentially the same.

What is more interesting is that schools from lower clusters have come very close to the 90th percentile of the ultraelites. For instance, in the early 1980s the 90th percentile of Columbia was near 700. This was some 80 points above the 90th at Emory. Two decades later, Columbia's "lead" had diminished to only about 30 points.

A similar pattern can be observed with the elite schools as well. In the early 80s Cornell had a large lead of about 60 points on its fellow NY school Rochester. Two decades later, this lead had fallen to just 10 points.
GMAT Club Bot
[#permalink]
 1   2   3   4   5   6   

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne