<p>
[quote]
Considering that the SAT is primarily an aptitude test whereas the ACT is primarily an achievement test
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is an example of practicing the naming fallacy. It's not clear that the SAT and the ACT are based on a different set of underlying mental abilities. To show that they are would require a kind of construct validation study that may never have been performed. </p>
<p>The much more researched issue of the correlation of IQ test scores and SAT test scores suggests that both ARE largely influenced by the same set of underlying mental abilities. And that set of mental abilities is best characterized as "scholastic aptitude" rather than as "general intelligence." </p>
<p>
[quote]
The Binet scales and their descendants are perhaps the most publicized accomplishments of modern psychology. The term IQ, though often misunderstood, is a household word. The practical success of the “IQ test,” in its ability to place individuals along a spectrum of scholastic aptitude from dull to bright and in its relationship to school and occupational success, has overshadowed doubt about what the tests were measuring in an exact, psychological sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hopkins, Kenneth D. & Stanley, Julian C. (1981). Educational and Psychological Measurement and Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 348. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most authorities feel that current intelligence tests are more aptly described as 'scholastic aptitude' tests because they are so highly related to academic performance, although current use suggests that the term intelligence test is going to be with us for some time. This reservation is based not on the opinion that intelligence tests do not reflect intelligence but on the belief that there are other kinds of intelligence that are not reflected in current tests; the term intelligence is too inclusive.
<p>Yes tokenadult, by examining my comments prima facie, you could speciously conclude that I made that determination by "practicing the naming fallacy" -an impression which I unintentionally conveyed by oversimplifying the fundamental differences between the underlying architecture of each test. You are correct, both ACT and SAT scores "ARE largely influenced by the same set of underlying mental abilities", but the extent to which each test accurately reflects that set of underlying mental abilities (i.e. crystallized intelligence) differs notably. </p>
<p>"Meredith C. Frey and Douglas K. Detterman, researchers at Case Western Reserve University, have shown that students' SAT test scores correlate as highly as, and sometimes higher than, IQ tests correlate with each other. This is strong evidence that the SAT is a de facto intelligence test. Their findings will be published in the June 2004 issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the American Psychological Society. "
Association for Psychological Science [SAT</a> measures more than student performance, research shows it is also a reliable measure of IQ<a href="2004%20is%20far%20more%20recent%20than%201981%20I%20might%20add">/url</a> </p>
<p>"One study found a correlation of .82 between g and SAT scores. The same study found a correlation of .73 between g and ACT scores"
Cervilla et al (2004). "Premorbid cognitive testing predicts the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's disease better than and independently of APOE genotype". Psychiatry 2004;75:1100-1106</p>
<p>All of these studies are more recent than the studies you cite, and they all seem to support the notion that the SAT is a better indicator of general intelligence than the ACT, whereas the ACT is a better predictor of collegiate achievement than the SAT. The extent to which they differ is not that significant but it does lend credence to my contention that the ACT favors scholastic overachievers while the SAT favors scholastic underachievers (especially those with extraordinary intelligence)</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is strong evidence that the SAT is a de facto intelligence test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which can be turned around to say that the kind of IQ test examined in such a study is a de facto test of scholastic aptitude, because there is much less validation of IQ tests in contexts other than school attendance. </p>
<p>I am very familiar with the recent publications of Detterman, and I was thinking of those as much as I was thinking of Stanley's citation, readily at hand, when I replied at first. I think you still need to mull over some more Stanley's remark, reinforced by his long acquaintance with high-IQ young people, that IQ does not correspond to anything quite so general as "general intelligence."</p>
<p>I don't know if you've seen any SAT reasoning questions lately, but if you really sit down and examine the questions, you'll see that they do require a fair bit more "out of the box" thinking than do the ACT questions. </p>
<p>ACT questions are usually just "find x", "solve this equation", or "what is main subject of the passage". The necessary information is almost always given and it's not really necessary to infer anything.</p>
<p>SAT's different. Sure, it may ask you to "find x", but in order to do so, you need to be able to see relationships that aren't explicitly given and apply them to solve the problem. You need to be able to see that some odd looking diagram that you've never seen before is really a clever application of parallel lines, or really be able to read into what an author is trying to say by looking at the nuances of the word choices, and/or be able to apply an implied idea to another, hypothetical situation (among a host of other things)</p>
<p>Maybe the SAT isn't an IQ test, but it sure as hell measures the ability to think creatively under pressure moreso than the ACT does.</p>
<p>I've seen questions from the item content of both tests recently enough, and often enough, that I know that the real issue here is running a validation study. Over the long haul, is there a definable difference in terms of a well recognized psychological construct between persons who score very high on the SAT and only moderately high on the ACT, and persons who score the other way around, or isn't there? It's plain enough that both tests favor students with strong reading ability in English over students who have other intellectual strengths, and that's a reasonable characteristic for a college entrance test to have, but to extrapolate on the basis of thin evidence to a lifelong trait description of one kind or the other of high-scoring test-taker is not scientific. </p>
<p>Just to illustrate that this issue has been around for a LONG time, let's look back to the writings of Lewis Terman, the author of the first IQ test widely used by school psychologists. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There are, however, certain characteristics of age scores with which the reader should be familiar. For one thing, it is necessary to bear in mind that the true mental age as we have used it refers to the mental age on a particular intelligence test. A subject's mental age in this sense may not coincide with the age score he would make in tests of musical ability, mechanical ability, social adjustment, etc. A subject has, strictly speaking, a number of mental ages; we are here concerned only with that which depends on the abilities tested by the new Stanford-Binet scales.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Terman, Lewis & Merrill, Maude (1937). Measuring Intelligence: A Guide to the Administration of the New Revised Stanford-Binet Tests of Intelligence, page 25. </p>
<p>P.S. Most of the young people I know best locally score very high on both the SAT and the ACT, so I perhaps have a different attitude toward the premise of this thread from some other readers.</p>
<p>^ If it was still graded the same then everyone would probably say ACT is harder since there would be no rounding to a whole number which makes a huge difference in ACT and cancels out the fact that there's no curve per se.</p>
<p>How about if the question was "2400 vs 144" (all 36s)? Or to make it more even "1600 vs 144" since the ACT writing part is separate and doesn't count for the "36" score? Or even better "2400 vs 180" if you add the ACT Writing to the score?</p>