Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

_-.
. .
._A
.-.
Table 9 summarizes these hypotheses. Table 10 lists the test
specialties for which the F ratios would not ‘allow rejection of the
null hypotheses. For these test specialt~~no differences were found
between the SKT scores of OJT graduates and those of TTS graduates.
Table 11 displays regression and correlation statistrcs for the test
specialties for which one or more of the null hypothesis was technically
rejected. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the data of Table 11
graphically, holding constant the dummy variables NEGRO, FEMALE,
and TEST FORM.
Figure 1 illustrates the results for SKT test specialty 63140,
Fuels Specialist. Acceptance of the second hypothesis means that
there was a statistically significant difference in the performance
of QJT and TTS graduates on the 63140 SKT. Ability as measured
by the Mechanical AI apparently has the same relationship with SKT
scores for both OJT and TTS graduates in this specialty.
The same results obtain for test specialty 64740, Materiel
Facilities Specialist, escept the difference in mean scores as
evidenced by the “OJT” coefficient is slightly larger. The diq>lay
would be similar to Figure 1.
Test specialty 79240, Administrative Specialist, is interesting
in comparison because not only is the mean SKT score higher for
V’OJT*’ graduates, but also ability may have a differentiZl%ii&t on
OJT and TTS graduates. Figure 2 illustrates these results.