I__. - International Military Testing Association

------ ---- __ ._ ._ -.._-_-- .--.
- .
large by research standards (r = .5252) was not statistically
significant (p = .237).
Difference Scores and Failure Rates. Using a 50th percentile
personnel reading ability as a target base, the correlation of
the RGL deficits with first time exam failure rate was .2117
with a probability equal to . 101 -- not statistically significant.
When a 15th percentile target base was used, the correlation
of the deficits with first time failure rates was also
not significant (r = .2459, p = .068). Similar analyses of .
course failure rates yielded the same result.
Conclusion
FORCAST reading grade levels were not significantly associated
with end-of-course test performance, reading grade level targets
using the Air Force Reading Ability Test scale, or Flesch-
Kincade reading difficulty obtained from a computer analysis.
Additionally, FORCAST reading grade levels had not changed consistently
over time. There was evidence that RGL had risen
slightly sometime during the eight year period but it was unclear
whether the rise was continuing.
Careful examination of the summed evidence suggested, however,
that the null outcomes were possibly due to an aggressive
"clearly written text" program within ECI. This effort, which
replaced FORCAST in the mid-1980s, introduced an ongoing conscious
effort on the part of the text writers and reviewers to
ensure the readability of the materials. Earlier information
suggested that use of FORCAST was associated with a reduction in
reading difficulties to the point where FORCAST was no longer
predictive. Present data suggested that the "clearly written
text" standard may continue to limit the value of FORCAST as a
predictive indicator.
Discussing more generally the issue of attention to RGL, it was
noted that most ways of determining RGL and tests designed to
assess the reading ability of students were highly correlated -often
as highly intercorrelated as the validity coefficients of
the individual measures. Differences in outcome Values were
typically due to scale. The task of maintaining acceptably low
reading difficulty within written materials was primarily one of
maintained focus on the problem using any of several means. FOR-
CAST was one means easily calculated by hand. The Flesch-
Kincade RGL provided here by Right-Writer, although almost
necessitating a computer, was a viable option especially when
the written material was already in an acceptable word processing
medium. The Right-Writer output in fact contained consider-
I . ..1__
II- -...
130