I__. - International Military Testing Association

tally significant. Hotelling's T2 was 5.1998 with a probability
of .027 at 1 and 2 degrees of freedom. It should be noted, however,
that the test,;was made on a group to group basis and there
was no indication which individual pairs may have changed the
most. It was in fact possible that no pairs would significantly
vary even though the full model rejected the null hypothesis.
Also, since the test was non-directional, it was not possible to
identify which group contained higher RGLs than the other although
they appear to have been higher more recently. I
.
An observation related to this, however, was the significant'
correlation of the RGLS of the two samples (r = .4709, p =
.OOl). This raised an interesting situation in which samples
taken in 1982 and 1990,: although significantly different,. were
none the less related. The relatedness, however, was not developmental
over time. One possible solution to this ambiguity was
that RGL was varying with frequent but intermittent corrections
using a current "clearly written text" standard.
1990 RGLs and First Time Examination Failures. RGLs were not
significantly related to first time examination failure rates (r
= .0741 and probability = .327).
1990 RGL and Overall Course Failures. ~11 students failing the
first final examination were provided a retest. Course failure
required failure of both the first examination and the
reexamination. As was the case with first time exam failures,
course failures were not significantly related to RGL in the
1990 sample (r = .0404, probability = .403).
FORCAST RGL and AFHRL Targets. The correlation between FORCAST
RGLs of course materials in the 1990 sample and AFHRL targets of
actual student reading ability (50th percentile reading ability)
was .0695 and was not significant (p = .333). A reduced target
at the 15th percentile also failed to be significantly related
to the obtained FORCAST RGL (r = .0249 with probability = .439).
The data failed to demonstrate that the variation within the
reading ability of personnel was linearly related to FORCAST
RGLs of the CDC material.
FORCAST RGL and Flesch-Kincade RGL Comparison. Due to resource
limitations on the Flesch-Kincade RGL side, comparisons were
made on only one CDC consisting of four volumes. The means and
SDS were 11.2725 and . 5187 for FORCAST and 9.0800 and .1619 for
Flesch-Kincade. The obvious difference between the averages was
significant with Hotelling's T2 of 92.8489 and probability equal
.004 '(df = 1 and 3). Flesch-Kincade generated significantly
lower RGL estimates than did FORCAST. The correlation, although
129