no. 2.] PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 



467 



Table 139. — Comparison of beta tests. 



[Coefficients of relationship hetween performance in eacli test (as well as in the total examination and in the sum of tests 4, 5, 6, and 7) and officers' 

 estimates of military value. Camp Meade experiment. The Mserial coefficients of correlation are calculated with the two highest officers' 

 ratines, a and b, as a subgroup (column headed ab/cde) and also with the two lowest ratings, d and c, as a subgroup (column headed abclde). 

 The correlation ratios are given for score on military value, m ,i), , and for military value on score, ,„!)„». The numbers in parentheses show 

 the rank order of correlations. ] 



Table 140. — Comparison of beta tests. 



[Degree in which paired groups are differentiated by performance in every test . The first column for each paired group gives the difference (d) 

 between the means of the performances of the two groups in every test. The second column gives the ratio of this difference to the standard 



deviation of the difference ( \ which is a measure of the effectiveness of the differentiation between the groups in the pair by the test. 



\S. D.d/ 



The third column (figures in parentheses) gives the rank order of every test with respect to its effectiveness in differentiation. Data are from 

 Camps Custer and Travis.] 



Test 1 . 

 Test 2. 

 Test 3. 

 Test 4. 

 Test 5 . 

 Teste. 

 Test 7. 



Men of "low military 



value" v. standard 



group 



(Camp Custer). 



1 Poorest" Infantry 



v. standard group 



(Nineteenth Infantry. 



Camp Travis). 



2.37 

 4.87 

 3.44 

 8.57 

 7.74 

 5.39 

 2.61 



d 

 S. D. d 



8.1 

 10.6 



S 



14.3(1 

 14.1(2 

 11.8 



8.2(61 



4.84 

 5.75 

 4.23 

 5.21 

 8.21 

 4.96 

 4.37 



d 

 S. D., 



28.7 

 18.0 

 13.5 

 5.4 

 13.1 

 11.6 

 17.0 



"Poorest" Field 

 Artillery p. standard 



group 

 (Fiftv-second, Fifty- 

 third, Fifty-fourth, 

 Field Artillery, 

 Camp Travis). 



3.67 



2.19 



.13 



1.65 

 2.36 

 1.34 



d 

 S. D. d 



" Poorest" Infantry 



v. "poorest," 



Field Artillery 



(Camp Travis). 



1.18 

 3.56 

 4.10 



6.56 

 2.60 

 3.04 



d 

 S. D. d 



5. 2 (5' 

 7.2 



Table 141. — Comparison of beta tests. 



[Degree in which paired groups are differentiated by performance in every test (cf. preceding table). Degree of differentiation is measured by the 

 x 2 criterion (see text) and figures in the table are values of x 2 - The figures in parentheses give the rank order of every test with respect toits 

 effectiveness in differentiation as measured by the x 2 criterion. Data are from Camps Custer and Travis.] 



Testl. 

 Test 2. 

 Test3. 

 Testl. 

 Test 5. 

 Test 6. 

 Test7. 



Men of "low 

 military 

 value" v. 

 standard 

 group 

 (Camp 

 Custer). 



83.64 (; 



92.98(4) 



59. 63 (6) 

 111.92 (2) 

 107.61 (3 

 128.37(1 



57.74(7) 



"Poorest" 

 Infantry v. 

 standard 

 group (Nine- 

 teenth Infan- 

 try, Camp 

 Travis). 



119.54(4) 

 140. 20 (2 

 90.36(6 

 81.63(7 

 139.99 (3 

 106.04(5) 

 172. 64 (I) 



" Poorest" 



Field 

 Artillery v. 

 standard 

 group ( Fifty- 

 second, Fifty- 

 third. Fifty- 

 fourth Field 

 Artillery, 

 Camp 

 Travis). 



11.84(5) 

 21.77(3) 

 16.03(4) 



" Poorest" 



Infantry u. 



"poorest" 

 Field 



Artillery, 

 (Camp 

 Travis). 



This is what probably happens in the case of "poorest" Infantry v. "poorest" Field 

 Artillery. We have already seen in the discussion of the alpha tests that the poorest Artillery 

 privates who took alpha were superior to the poorest Infantry privates who took alpha. The 

 corresponding beta cases appear to be differentiated in the same way. The poorest Infantry 

 privates are on the whole a little too dull to comprehend the situation presented by test 3, and 



