Individual differences |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |
The Miller Analogies Test (MAT) is a 120 question, 60 minute (formerly 100 question, 50 minute) standardized test used primarily for graduate school admissions in the USA. It was created and is published by Harcourt Assessment.
The exam aims to measure an individual's logical and analytical reasoning through the use of partial analogies. An example test question might be:
Bach : Composing :: Monet :
- a. painting
- b. composing
- c. writing
- d. orating
The answer would be a. painting because just as Bach is most known for composing music, Monet is most known for his painting. More example questions may be found here
Out of the 120 questions, only 100 are scored for a raw score. The remaining 20 questions are experimental. As a test-taker there is no way of knowing which questions will count toward the raw score and which questions are experimental. As of the fall of 2004, the exam became computerized; test-takers can now opt to take it as a Computer-Based Test (CBT), although the pen-and-paper exam still exists.
Unlike analogies found on the GRE and the SAT, the MAT's analogies demand a broad knowledge of Western culture, testing subjects such as science, music, literature, philosophy, mathematics, art, and history. Thus, exemplary success on the MAT requires more than a nuanced and cultivated vocabulary.
The MAT has fallen out of favor among some admissions departments, yet it is still widely accepted in the social sciences, education and, occasionally, in the humanities. For most graduate programs, however, the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) is the most common qualifying exam.
The Miller Analogies Test is also accepted by MENSA for their admission requirements. MENSA requires a score in the 95th percentile for admission.
Tests taken before October 2004 were scored simply by the number of questions the test-taker answered correctly with a range from 0-100; this was the test-taker's "raw score." Tests taken in October 2004 or later have a test score range from 200 to 600, with 400 as the mean and a standard deviation of 25 points; this is the test-taker's "scaled score." A test-taker's score report lists three things: the scaled score (based, of course, on the number of correct answers out of 100), the percentile rank of that scaled score compared to a norm group of some 120,000 previous test-takers, and the percentile rank of that scaled score compared to a subgroup of the norm group, i.e., the subgroup who indicated the same major area of graduate study as the test-taker. There is no way to know or calculate a raw score (number of correct answers out of 100) from any given scaled score. A scaled score of 500 or above is quite rare. As of 2006 the scaled score of 421 was in the 81st percentile and as of 2007 a scaled score of 454 was in the 98th percentile. As of March 2007, a scaled score of 464 was in the 99th percentile. As of July 2010 a scaled score of 492 was in the 99.9th percentile.
- Deffenbacher, J. L. (1977). Relationship of worry and emotionality to performance on the Miller Analogies Test: Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 69(2) Apr 1977, 191-195.
- Dennis, M. (1979). Issues in the prediction of graduate student success: American Psychologist Vol 34(9) Sep 1979, 800-801.
- Feldman, M. J. (1958). A comparison of Miller Analogy Test scores: Journal of Counseling Psychology Vol 5(2) Sum 1958, 149-150.
- Furst, E. J., & Roelfs, P. J. (1979). Validation of the Graduate Record Examinations and the Miller Analogies Test in a doctoral program in education: Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol 39(1) Spr 1979, 147-151.
- Graham, L. D. (1991). Predicting academic success of students in a Master of Business Administration program: Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol 51(3) Fal 1991, 721-727.
- House, J. D., & Keeley, E. J. (1995). Age bias in prediction of grade performancce from Miller Analogies Test scores: Journal of Genetic Psychology Vol 156(2) Jun 1995, 257-259.
- House, J. D., & Keeley, E. J. (1995). Gender bias in prediction of graduate grade performance from Miller Analogies Test scores: Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Vol 129(3) May 1995, 353-355.
- Kirnan, J. P., & Geisinger, K. F. (1981). The prediction of graduate school success in psychology: Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol 41(3) Fal 1981, 815-820.
- Kooker, E. W. (1974). Changes in ability of graduate students in education to assess own test performance as related to their Miller Analogies scores: Psychological Reports Vol 35(1, Pt 1) Aug 1974, 97-98.
- Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic Performance, Career Potential, Creativity, and Job Performance: Can One Construct Predict Them All? : Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 86(1) Jan 2004, 148-161.
- Murray, R. E. (1979). Variability in MAT results within the field of education: Psychological Reports Vol 45(2) Oct 1979, 665-666.
- Nagi, J. L. (1975). Predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examination and the Miller Analogies Test: Educational and Psychological Measurement Vol 35(2) Sum 1975, 471-472.
- Vacc, N. N., & Picot, R. (1984). Predicting success in doctoral study: College Student Journal Vol 18(2) Sum 1984, 113-116.
- Zurcher, R., & Bryant, D. P. (2001). The validity and comparability of entrance examination scores after accommodations are made for students with LD: Journal of Learning Disabilities Vol 34(5) Sep-Oct 2001, 462-471.
- Deffenbacher, J. L. (1976). The relationship of worry and emotionality to Miller Analogy Test performance: Dissertation Abstracts International.
- Hochberg, R. K. (1972). Predictive effectiveness of the Miller Analogies Test and other variables for doctoral degree students in the School of Education at Fordham University: Dissertation Abstracts International Vol.
- Miller Analogies Homepage
- Harcourt Assessment, Inc.
- MAT Self-Assessment Modules
- MENSA Qualifying Scores including the MAT
|This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|