Mckelvie 1989
Mckelvie 1989
Mckelvie 1989
STUART J. McKELVIE
Bishop's Universib
'I thank d those who participated and assisted in this study, particularly Mary Latuli pe,
Barbara McLeUan, Susie Shields, Sue Stuart, and Lynn White who helped to collate the fata,
and Sandra Gallichon and Kim Passey, who retrieved the transcripts. Reprint requests should
be sent to Smart J. McKelvie, Department of Psychology, Bishop's Univenity, Lennoxville,
Quebec, J I M 127 Canada.
162 S. J. McKELVIE
on the same basis, only courses taken in the most recent semester were con-
sidered, numbers for individual students ranging from three to six, the mode
being five. For the three consecutive years, Pearson correlations between
test scores and mean grades (concurrent validity) were .23 ( p < .05), .17
( p < .lo), and .23 ( p < .02), respectively; the combined value was .21.
Notably, this estimate is identical to the one given in the manual for the
correlation of test score with GPA. In addition, the Ms and SDs in the three
calendar years were 26.1 and 6.6 (1987), 27.0 and 6.4 (1988), and 26.8 and
5.8 (1989). These means were not significantly different (F,,,,, = .67, p > .20),
and the over-all M and SD were 26.7 and 6.2. The mean falls between the
test scores in the manual for high school (20.8) and college (29.6) graduates,
suggesting that the present over-all mean score is consistent with previous
findings.
These data show that the Wonderlic is internally consistent for under-
graduates and that their mean score falls as expected on the basis of
Wonderlic's norms. However, the low validity coefficient reported in the
manual and confirmed here suggests that the test has little practical value as
a predictor of individual grades, accounting as it does for only 4.4% of the
variance. Of course, this value might be slightly depressed by a restriction in
range, since only enrolled students were tested. Indeed, the current SDs
were slightly lower than the most relevant ones in the manual, which were
about 7.0. O n the other hand, the test might be useful as a general screen-
ing device or even as an addition to other admission data, particularly if the
selection ratio at the institution were low (Anastasi, 1988, p. 174). Probably
the most useful function for the Wonderlic in the academic setting, how-
ever, would be as a research instrument when a quick estimate of general
intelligence is needed. So I advise my students.
REFERENCES
ANASTASI,A. (1988) Psychological testing. (6th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
D~vou,D., & MCKELVIE,S. J. (1984) Relationship between study habits and performance on
an intelligence test with limited and unlimited time. Psychological Reports, 54, 367-371.
MURPHY,K. R. (1984) The Wonderlic Personnel Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland
(Eds.), Test critiques. Vol. 1. Pp. 769-775.
WONDERLIC, E. F. (1983) Wonderlic Personnel Test manual. NorthField, IL: E. F. Wonderlic &
Assoc.