THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD OF
PRETESTING STUDENT ABILITY TO

UNDERSTAND AND APPLY PRINCIPLES
OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

Thesis for Ike Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MiIdred Marguerite Rothgarn
1962

4‘.
3-5.?“

‘ 'tv‘uzws
" .‘!:“‘c..‘

THESIS

_..-

L I B R A R Y
Michigan Statc

University

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD OF PRETESTING STUDENT
ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND APPLY PRINCIPLES
OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

by Mildred Marguerite Rothgarn

Testing programs in institutions of higher learning
have become increasingly important as college and university
enrollments have increased. The major impetus in the field
of measurement and evaluation has occurred within the past
sixty-five years. The most recent trend in testing is
toward evaluation of ability to understand and apply prin-
ciples involved rather than testing for mere facts.

In this study, two equivalent evaluation instruments,
Form A and Form B, were developed to test student ability
to understand and apply four specific principles of
clothing construction prior to formal college instruction.
Test items were labeled either "understanding" or "appli-
cation." In addition, an experience questionnaire was
formulated to obtain information concerning students'
previous clothing construction experiences. Michigan State
University had neither of these instruments previous to
this study.

Twenty—four students at Western Michigan University
served as a pilot group in developing Forms A and B. After
revisions were made, the pretest was administered at
Michigan State University to eighty-two enrollees in Prin~
ciples of Clothing Construction (Textiles, Clothing and

Related Arts 152). None of the participants had had a

Mildred Marguerite Rothgarn

a college course in clothing construction.

Validity of the course content and the answer key was
established by selected groups of Judges. Other authori-
ties who contributed to the development and statistical
analysis of the tests included experts in test construction,
clothing construction, and educational research.

The coefficients of reliability for Form A (.734) and
Form B (.732) were determined by the Analysis of Variance
method. A correlation coefficient of +.7O indicated a
marked relationship between the two forms of the pretest
which had been Judged reliable.

Validity of the two test forms, using the final course
grade as the criterion, was determined by the Pearson
Product-Moment formula. Coefficients of +.52 for Form A
and +.50 for Form B indicated some degree of validity.
Correlations were higher when application items were
included in the computations than when only understanding
items were used.

The experience questionnaire was Judged helpful to the
instructors in gaining insight into their students' back-
grounds. Correlations were low between the student's opinion
of her ability and her final course grade and between stu—
dent's grade on the dress made as a class proJect and the
number of dresses she had constructed previously. Neither

coefficient was high enough to be considered significant.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD OF PRETESTING STUDENT
ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND APPLY PRINCIPLES

OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

by

Mildred Marguerite Rothgarn

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts

1962

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The assistance and cooperation of many individuals
were essential to this study. Special appreciation is
expressed to Dr. Mary Gephart for her most helpful guidance
and encouragement throughout the study. In addition,
gratitude is expressed to Dr. Beatrice O'Donnell for
reviewing the test items; to Miss Reva Volle for making
arrangements for the administration of the pilot test; to
the instructors in Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts 152
for serving as Judges; to Dr. David Payne for acting as a
consultant during the statistical analysis of the tests;
and to the students at Western Michigan University and
Michigan State University for responding to the evaluation

instruments.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

II.

III.

IV.

V.

SUMMARY,

Purpose . . . . . . . . .
Need . . . . . . . . . .
Assumptions. . . . . . . .
Scope. . . . . .
Samples . . . . .
Instrument Development
Definition of Terms .

O O i 0

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . .

Purposes of Evaluation Instruments
Studies Related to Evaluation in
Clothing Construction. . . .

PROCEDURE . .

Preliminary Step
Differentiation Between Pilot Test
and Pretest . . .
Development of the Pilot Test. .
The Sample of the Pilot Test . .
Administration and Analysis of the
Pilot Test . . . . . .
The Experience Questionnaire .
Keying the Test Items .
Administration and Analysis of the

Pretest . . . . .
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . .
The Pilot Test. . . . . .
The Pretest. . . . . .

The Experience Questionnaire . .

iii

CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Page
ii

CIDNNIU‘IU‘IUOID I—‘

[—1
O

13
26
26
26
27
29
29
32
33
33
36
36
37

48

Chapter Page

summaryo a O O 3 O 3 o 1 o o a #8
Conclusions . . . . 51
Recommendations . . . . 52
APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O 9 0 O O O O 0 5H
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. The Proportion of Items Related to Each

of the Four Principles of Clothing

Construction . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. The Strength of Relationship Between Each

Category in the Pretest . . . . . . A2
3. Strength of Relationship Between the

Criterion and Each Category of the

Pretesto O O O O 9 O O O O O O “A
A. Numerical Weightings Assigned to the

Ability Classifications . . . . . . A6
5. Percentage of Students Placing Themselves

in Each Ability Classification and the
Average Number of Garments made by Stu-
dents in Each Category. . . . . . . A7

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In recent years the number of students enrolling in
colleges and universities has increased tremendously.
According to the Forty-Second Annual School and Society

1 matriculation at institutions of higher

Enrollment Study,
education during the past nine years has increased signifi-
cantly. Total enrollment for 1961—1962 alone showed an
increase of 6.6 per cent over the 1960—1961 figure.

Coupled with the increasing enrollments is the growing
importance and need for adequate testing programs. In addi-
tion to general admissions tests, many programs are including
tests to measure proficiency in specific areas of learning.
Lindquist2 expressed the viewpoint that admissions and
achievement tests are intended for wide—scale use and that
they emphasize general obJectives, whereas tests intended to

measure specific obJectives of instruction should be con—

structed locally to fit the local course of study. Although

lGarland G, Parker, "Statistics of Attendance in
American Universities and Collages: l96l-l962,” School and
Society, xc (January 13, 1962), 5-21.

2E. F. Lindquist (ed.), Educational Measurement
(Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1951),
p. 121.

2

certain tests are designed to emphasize factual information,
the trend is toward measuring understanding and ability to
apply to new situations the skills and principles involved.
Even though the latter area is more difficult to evaluate,
it is of greater interest, especially at the college level.3

A pretest is one type of technique used to measure
achievement. Pretests are administered prior to formal
instruction and may provide educators with information con-
cerning student abilities, interests, attitudes, goals, and
preparation for certain courses. Knowledge of student
strengths and weaknesses prior to instruction provides
educators with a basis for better meeting specific needs
and for confronting students with challenging experiences.

This study is concerned with one constituent of the
evaluation program: a pretest of selected knowledge in the

area of clothing construction.

Purpose

At the college level a new approach to the teaching of
clothing construction emphasizes student ability to under-
stand and interpret clothing construction principlesl1L as a

foundation for problem solving. This approach is being

 

fir r

3Paul R. Anderson et al., College Testing (Washington,
D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1955), p. 7.

 

”The specific principles of clothing construction
ghicg are relevant to the present study appear on pages
an .

3

tried on an experimental basis at Michigan State University.
The purpose of this study is to develop a paper and pencil
examination which could be used as a pretest of student
ability to understand and apply these principles. In addi-
tion, an attempt will be made to develop an experience
questionnaire to obtain data concerning student clothing

construction experience prior to college enrollment.

E229.

After observing classes in the Michigan State Univer-
sity course entitled Principles of Clothing Construction
(Textiles, Clothing, and Related Arts 152) and discussing
clothing construction problems with the students, the writer
became aware of the heterogeneity of student backgrounds,
interests, and attitudes in relation to clothing construction.
Some students seemed better equipped than others to grasp
and utilize course instruction. It was felt that a need
existed for determining levels of ability in order to
provide optimum learning experiences for all.

According to Arny,5 "unless present status is known,
neither teachers nor students can see what changes need to
be made or are able to plan what instruction should be given
to bring about these changes." Educators advocate that stu-
dents be enrolled in courses which neither duplicate earlier
learned materials nor challenge the student beyond his

capacity.

 

5Clara Brown Arny, Evaluation in Home Economies (New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,1953), p. 26.

 

1;,

Knowledge of individual differences can be utilized
in a number of ways. In a broad sense it can serve to
further the course obJectives. Predetermined working
knowledge variants could be compensated by adjustment or
intensification of course content and methods, even though
the course obJectives remain identical for all. On the
basis of pretest scores students could be placed in
laboratory sections representing different degrees of
attainment so that instruction could proceed at the level
appropriate to the capacity of the group. Guidance of
students to proJects in which they could be presented with
challenging learning experiences could be more effective
if information concerning their level of readiness were
available to instructors. In some instances it might be
desirable to exempt exceptional students from beginning
courses. Pretest data could serve as one basis for accel—
erating outstanding students to more difficult and chal-
lenging experiences.

Various colleges and universities have evaluation
devices designed for use in their local college clothing
construction courses. A review of several of these tests
indicated that few are concerned with specific principles
of clothing construction. The review of literature also
indicated that there are no satisfactory standardized
instruments to test knowledge of principles of clothing
construction. The lack of standardized tests in home econ-

omics and clothing construction may be explained by the

5

fact that the practice of adapting home economics instruction
to the interests and needs of individual students may inter-
fere with the widespread use of any particular test.6 Due

to the shift in emphasis from facts to principles in college
clothing construction courses and also to the lack of a pre-

test in clothing construction at Michigan State University,

this study was undertaken.

Assumptions

 

The four assumptions basic to the study are:

l. Abilities of students can be predetermined.

2. The range of abilities among students varies.

3. A pretest provides an adequate sample of student
reactions to situations in which course principles
and obJectives may be expressed.

4. Principles of Clothing Construction (TCRA 152)

provides the general background of principles
and knowledge needed for subsequent courses.

Scope
The scope of this study involves two of the desirable

competencies expected to be exhibited by TCRA 152 students:
it includes the evaluation of student ability to understand
principles and ability to apply principles of clothing con-

struction. It, however, excludes achievement in manipulative

 

6Ivol Spafford, Fundamentals in Teaching Home Economics

 

(2d ed.; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1954), p. 22A.

7Ralph W. Tyler, Constructing Achievement Tests
(Columbus: Ohio State University, 19347, p. 61.

 

6
skills. This study is based on the three course obJectives
and four course principles which have been developed for
Principles of Clothing Construction (TCRA 152) at Michigan
State University.8 The three obJectives are:

l.‘ Students should gain an understanding of basic
principles fundamental to all aspects of
clothing construction and an ability to apply
them.

2. Students should develop an understanding of
processes and techniques of clothing construction
and learn to evaluate them for specific end uses.

3. Students should develop an ability to recognize
and/or appreciate standards of clothing con-
struction.

The four principles and their associated corollaries are:

l. Shaping flat fabric to conform to body curves
requires reducing the perimeter of garment pieces,

Corollary I: The amount of reduction of the
perimeter of garment pieces is
relative to the degree of promi—
nence of body curves.

Corollary II: Darts, tucks, gathers, and ease
radiate from the most prominent
body curves to be covered by a
given garment piece.

2. When concentric circles or arcs of different radii
are used in clothing construction, certain adJust-
ments in the circumferences are necessary.

3. Manipulation of any given material is dependent
upon its component parts.

Corollary I: Structure is a determinant of the
extensibility of fabric.

 

8Elizabeth H. Stewartson, ”An Experimental Approach to
the Teaching of Beginning Clothing Construction” (unfinished
Master's thesis, Michigan State University, expected to be
completed in August, 1962).

7

Corollary II: Texture is a determinant of the
behavior of fabric.

4. Choice of construction methods and techniques and
choice of fabric are interrelated.

Samples

Samples for the present study were selected and
divided into two groups; those who responded to the pilot
test and those who responded to the pretest. Freshman home
economics students at Western Michigan University during
the 1961-1962 school year who had not yet been enrolled in
a college clothing construction course were selected for
the item analyses of the pilot study. The sample for the
pretest consisted of students enrolled in Principles of
Clothing Construction (TCRA 152) at Michigan State University
Spring Term, 1962. None of the respondents had been exposed

to previous college clothing construction training.

Instrument Development

 

Multiple-choice and matching items were used in the
pilot test and the pretest because, according to Crawford
and Burnham,9 multiple—choice, matching, and logical infer—
ence procedures readily lend themselves to the measurement
of complex thought processes. These methods were selected
in an attempt to determine student levels of ability to
solve problems using underlying principles of clothing con—

struction.

 

9Paul S. Burnham and Albert B. Crawford, Forecasting
College Achievement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936),

p. 105.

 

 

Definition of Terms

 

10 generally

The following is an explanation of terms
applied during the construction of pretests and other eval—
uation instruments. These definitions are presented to
clarify any misconceptions which may arise due to wording
or the meaning of specific technical terms.
Correlation--the relationship between two variables or two

sets of measures for the same groups of individuals.

An absence of relationship is denoted by .00 while

the presence of a positive or negative correlation is
denoted by +1.00 or -l.00, respeCtively.

 

Discriminating Item-—a test item which differentiates between
persons in which some trait is more greatly or rela-
tively less pronounced.

 

Equivalent Forms--two or more forms of a test that are so
closely alike in terms of their item difficulty and
the functions they measure that they yield similar
average scores and the same dispersion of scores.

 

Evaluation-—the quantitative measurement and qualitative
appraisal of a comprehensive range of obJectives,
defined in terms of pupil behavior, via a variety of
techniques.

 

Item Analysis--the process of determining the validity of a
test item, considering the difficulty level and the
discriminating power of each test item.

 

Item Difficulty--a measure of the proportion of a given
group which answers a test item correctly.

 

Mean-~a measure of central tendency indicating the arithme-
tic average of a distribution of test scores.

Measurement-—the quantitative appraisal of educational
obJectives, usually by means of some device.

 

Median--the score which divides test scores in a frequency
distribution into two equal parts.

 

10Adapted from Joseph Justman, Irving Robbins, and J.
Wayne Wrightstone, Evaluation in Modern Education (New York:
American Book Co., 1956).

 

9

Mode-~the score which occurs most frequently in a distri-
bution of scores.

 

Reliability--the degree of consistency with which a test
measures whatever, if anything, it does measure.

Split-Halve Reliability-—the correlation between the score
on one-half of a test and the score on the other

half of the test, with the appropriate Spearman-Brown
correction.

Standardized Tests-~tests which sample the performance of
an individual or a group under prescribed conditions
and which are scored according to stated rules and
interpreted by reference to normative data.

Validity—-the extent to which a test actually tests what-
ever it was intended to test.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Evidences of early testing devices, although crude in
comparison to present-day techniques, are recorded in
ancient literature. The story of the first obJective test
appears in the Old Testament (Judges, 12:57).11 The
Gileadites examined the tribes who wished to cross the
Jordon by asking them to pronounce correctly the word
"Shibboleth.” The enemy Ephraimites could respond only with
"Siboleth"; consequently 42,000 of their number were killed.
Another form of oral examination was exemplified by Socrates
when he subJected his students to comprehensive oral
quizzing. In spite of the evidence indicating that testing
began hundreds of years ago, the modern concepts of testing
programs for assessing student growth and development have
evolved from research done within the short span of the past
sixty-five years.

12

Scates who traced the development of modern measure-

ment and evaluation concepts by decades, found that the

 

llNorma V. Scheidemann, "The Earliest Recorded ObJective
Test," School and Society, XXIX (June 1, 1929), 702.

 

12Douglas E. Scates, "Fifty Years of 0bJective Measure-
ment and Research in Education,” Journal of Educational
Research, XLI (December, 1947), 241-264.

10

 

11
first contributions were made from 1897 to 1906. This first
decade was marked by Joseph M. Rice's test of spelling, by
experimentation on the Binet intelligence scale, and by
achievement testing for the basic skills of arithmetic and
language arts. New concepts of testing introduced by
Thorndike during the second decade related to obJective
scoring, items scaled according to difficulty, and statis-
tical determination of norms for achievement tests. During
the third decade, statistical techniques continued to be
developed until they could be applied to test analysis.
Group intelligence tests for children patterned after those
used in World War I and achievement test batteries published
for purchase by school systems appeared during the 1920's.
Notable advances during the fourth decade were the formula-
tion of methods and techniques for measuring and evaluating
attitudes, interests, powers of thinking, and personal-social
adaptability plus measures of achievement and intelligence.
In that decade, the concept of evaluation was given impetus
by Ralph W. Tyler and the Eight-Year Study, in which broader
sets of obJectives, such as personal characteristics and
response tendencies, were measured. Evaluation devices
introduced in the fourth decade and refined in the fifth
decade included personality tests, projective techniques,

interest inventories, attitude scales, and anecdotal records.

l2

Purposes of Evaluation Instruments

 

In more recent years testing programs have become con—
cerned with functional learning outcomes, with emphasis being
shifted from the measurement of isolated skills, facts, and
abilities to the measurement of understanding and interpre-
tation. Hustonl3 reported an early experimental measurement
program conducted by the School of Home Economics at Ohio
State University from 1931 to 1935. This program was an
important innovation, as it emphasized the specific teaching
objectives of desirable behavior rather than the mere impor-
tation of subject matter. The Ohio State University experi—
ment was the first attempt to test for understanding and
application of principles in home economics.

The early studies of the prediction of academic success
in high school and college were concerned mainly with pre~
dictions using over-all scholastic aptitude measuresglIIt has
been found that tests which are designed for specific courses
provide more accurate predictions than tests which have
broader purposes. Greater progress in pretesting, however,
has been made in fields other than home economics, particu-
larly at the elementary school level, in trades, and in

industry.15

 

l3Hazel H. Huston, ”Measuring Achievement in Home
Economics," Journal of Home Economics, XXIX (January, 1937),
19-22.

14Robert M. W. Travers, Educational Measurement (New
York: The Macmillan Co., 1955), p. 391.

 

 

l5Arny, op. cit., p. 11.

13

A survey of the literature revealed that most home
economics tests have been designed to cover specific areas
rather than to encompass the entire field. Among the instru—
ments developed have been scales for measuring sewing
ability, check lists for determining the quality of the foods
prepared by students, and tests in household management,
foods, and house design and home furnishings.

A number of colleges and universities are currently
administering objective pretests to their freshman enrollees
in clothing construction. These obJective tests are serving
as important tools for student placement and grouping, for
guiding students into worth-while learning experiences, and
for planning course instruction.

(Objective tests, according to Dr. J. Raymond Gerberich,
are the most reliable instruments available for measuring
the complex aspects of student behavior in which administra-
tors and instructors are becoming increasingly interested.l6
Gerberich's statement supports, in part, several of the pre-

testing devices used in the studies which are reviewed in

the following paragraphs.)

 

16Robert L. Ebel, "Inventories and Tests,” Education,
LXXXI(0ctober, 1960), 75. Ebel's article summarizes a
discussion by six leading experts in theory and techniques
of testing. Dr. J. Raymond Gerberich was one of the auth-
orities who discussed the effects of widespread objective
testing.

 

14

Studies Related to Evaluation in
Clothing Construction

 

 

The first pretest in clothing construction, developed
by Saddlerl7 at Iowa State College in 1945, was designed to
section students into homogeneous groups. This test battery
was composed of a Paper—and-Pencil Section to determine the
acquisition of information and a Practical Section to test
sewing ability. In addition, an experience score was
obtained by having each student list the number of garments
she had made. Weightings were then assigned to garments
which had been made under supervision, and the various
findings were formed into a total score.

High coefficients of reliability showed that both sec—
tions of the Saddler test were internally consistent. The
Paper-and-Pencil-Section and the Practical Section had co-
efficients of reliability of .843 and .881, respectively.

A correlation of scores on the two sections yielded a coef-
ficient of +.669. The split—score method and the Spearman-
Brown formula were used. The coefficient of correlation of
+.45 between the experience scores and teacher sectioning
was too low to be valid for predictive purposes. Regression
equations were developed to determine which test factor or
combination of factors would be best for predicting achieve-

ment in elementary clothing construction.

 

l7Jane Saddler, ”Placement Test for College Home Econ-
omics Students: I. Elementary Clothing Construction” (un-
published Master's thesis, Iowa State College, 1945).

15
Saddler concluded from her findings that:
1. Both sections of the placement test were suffici—
ently reliable to use in helping to place students
in elementary clothing construction.

2. A different kind of behavior could be measured by
each section of the placement test.

3. Better prediction could be made by using the
Paper-and-Pencil Section of the placement test
and the Practical Section of the placement test
together than by using either section alone.

4. The addition of an experience score, as it was
determined in the study, was of insufficient
value to be useful for prediction.

She noted that the practical test was expensive and time—
consuming to administer and was difficult to score.

In 1952 Patson18 conducted a study to revise the
Saddler test and increase its efficiency to meet the changes
that had been made in the content and method of teaching the
elementary clothing construction course at Iowa State
College. Serving as a basis for revision were an item
analysis of the Saddler Paper-and—Pencil Test for 175 girls
who had taken the elementary clothing construction course
and an analysis of the students' placement in each course
section.

Using the final examination as the criterion, Patson
found a correlation ofit402 between the Saddler Paper—and-
Pencil Test and this criterion. This correlation, which was

considerably lower than those computed by Saddler, was ex-

plained by Patson in several ways. She felt that some items

 

18Nellie Katherine Patson, "Prediction of Construction
Achievement Using Saddler Clothing Test, Dexterity

16
of good discriminating power were probably discarded because
they no longer applied to the revised course. The discrim-
inating power of some test items may have been lost in an
attempt to clarify their meaning. Saddler's use of the
teacher‘s judgment on the correctness of the placement of
the student at the end of three weeks of instruction instead
of the final examination as a criterion may have been another
factor accounting for the lower correlation. Patson felt
that various criteria should be studied to determine which
one would give the most valid prediction.

Since the Saddler Test had not been revised in time to
be administered at the first class meeting, Patson recom-
mended that a further study be made under more favorable
conditions. She further recommended that the effectiveness
of the Revised Saddler Paper-and-Pencil Test be studied.

A third study of the Saddler Paper—and-Pencil Test was
undertaken by Nieman in 1961.19 In determining the effec-
tiveness of the revised placement test, she selected as her
criteria the final course grade, the instructor's opinion of

the best placement of each student, and the student's opinion

 

Questionnaire and Four Spatial Relations Test” (unpublished
Master's thesis, Iowa State College, 1952).

19Mary Read Nieman, ”Effectiveness of the Placement
Test for Sectioning Students in the Elementary Clothing
Construction Course" (unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa
State University, 1961).

17
of her best placement. Data were collected from 234 elemen-
tary clothing construction students who were placed in sec-
tions X, Y, Z, and in an experimental Y group.

Nieman found a positive correlation between the Saddler
Test and each of the criteria, indicating some degree of
validity for classifying students. Intercorrelation among
the criterion measures indicated that there was some agree-
ment between the instructor's and student's opinion concerning
correct placement of the student. The means of the X, Y, Z,
and experimental Y groups showed considerable agreement
between instructor and student opinion and correct placement
between groups, although instructors tended to place students
slightly lower than the students placed themselves.

Nieman recommended that the test battery, including the
Saddler Paper-and—Pencil Test, should continue as a classi-
fication device for elementary clothing construction. She
felt, however, that the Saddler Paper—and-Pencil Test could
be weighted more highly in the formulas for classifying stu—
dents in order to give better prediction.

20reported an experimental curriculum

Henkel and Seronsy
study at Purdue University where freshmen in an introductory
course in Clothing and Textiles were divided into beginning

and advanced groups for instructional purposes. The three

devices which were administered prior to instruction and

 

20Jean Henkel and Louise Baird Seronsy, "First Course
in Clothing and Textiles,” Journal of Home Economics, XLIII

(March. 1951). 195-197.

 

18

used for placement purposes were: (1) The Home Economics
Orientation Test in Clothing and Textiles, (2) Council on
Education Psychological Examination, and (3) the Experience
Checklist. The raw scores were converted to standard
T-scores, with double weighting given to the achievement
score on the orientation test. The final basis for placing
students in either the advanced or the beginning section
was the total T-score, which was obtained by adding all
T-scores.

Correlations were obtained between course grades
and each of the three devices used for sectioning students
and between course grades and the total T-sccres. Course
grades were related to all factors except the score on the
Experience Checklist. Henkel and Seronsy, therefore,
deduced that achievement, as measured by a reliable test,
is more basic to predicting course grades than is a score
of previous clothing learning experiences.

During the last week of the experimental course "A
Scale for Measuring Attitude Toward Any School Subject”
by Ella B. Silance and H. H. Remmers was given to all
students. The results were then compared with scores
from the same scale which had been given to students
in the non-sectioned introductory clothing course the
previous year. The difference between the mean scores
produced by the two types of classes was so great it

could not have occurred by chance. It was concluded

19
that sectioning students into varied levels of training can
produce favorable attitudes toward the course.

In another study at Purdue University, Wright and
Henkel21 attempted to determine the effect of past experi—
ence on achievement in a freshman clothing construction
laboratory. The term "achievement” included the following
three phases of learning: (1) knowledge, as measured by
paper and pencil tests; (2) skill, as measured by actual
sewing construction; and (3) attitudes, as measured by
student opinions.

An instrument composed of multiple-choice, matching,
and modified true-false items was developed to measure knowl-
edge gained during the semester. The test was administered
at the beginning and end of the semester course. The test
was valid to the extent of +.54 correlation coefficient
between the pretest score and the course grade. When the
same test was administered at the close of the semester, a
correlation coefficient of +.67 between the test score and
the course grade resulted. A reliability coefficient of +.83
was calculated by the split-forms method and corrected to a
+.9l by the Spearman—Brown Prophecy formula.

Wright and Henkel selected students for ”advanced” and
"intermediate" classes on the basis of desirable work
done on the two-hour pretest administered during the

orientation period for freshman students. These

 

21Janet Smith Wright and Jean Henkel, "Achievement in
Clothing Construction," Journal of Home Economics," XLIII
(October, 1951), 626-628.

 

20
students were encouraged to select more difficult problems
for the semester's work than was expected of the students
who were placed in the ”beginning” group.

Purdue University student attitudes toward the
sectioned clothing construction course rated well above
the indifference level measured on the Silance-Remmers
Form A scale. In fact 92.1 per cent of the students
favored divisioning students on the basis of previous
construction experience. The correlation contingency
between the course grade and the amount of previous
experience was +.52 indicating there was correlation
between freshman clothing construction course grades
and the amount and type of previous experience. Wright
and Henkel inferred that the amount of previous experience
in clothing construction had a definite effect on the
attitude and the achievement of the student. They
also concluded that students whose selected field
CW‘SPGCializatiOUrelated to clothing when they entered
the School of Home Economics did not show greater
achievement in clothing construction than students who
selected other areas.

At New Mexico State University in 1959, Hoskins22

developed the first clothing pretest for use in several

 

22Mercedes Nelson Hoskins, "Construction of a
Basic Clothing Pretest for Use in the Colleges and
Universities of New Mexico” (unpublished Master's
thesis, New Mexico State University, 1959).

21
institutions. Aided by personnel in five colleges and uni-
versities in New Mexico, she formulated generalizations
which may be taught in a first clothing construction I
course. Using the generalizations as a guide, she
constructed a pretest to determine student level of
understanding of basic clothing construction principles
and to determine strengths and weaknesses of incoming
freshman.studentsin.home economics. The principles
involved were divided into three areas: (1) principles
of arts applied to the complete costume, (2) principles
of pre-construction processes, and (3) principles of
construction processes. The test items were apportioned
according to the amount of emphasis placed on each
area by the five participating institutions of
higher learning.

Hoskins included in the pilot study, students in
high school vocational homemaking departments. Revision
of the pretest was made on the basis of the pilot study
and from the comments of a panel of critics.

The coefficient of correlation of the entire test
using the Spearman-Rank-Difference Method was +.99. The
coefficient of reliability using the Kuder-Richardson
Formula 20 was .717. Since no extreme scores were obtained,
Hoskins felt that the test was neither too easy nor too
difficult.

Hoskins recommended that a practical test accompany

22
the written pretest. In addition to using the pretest for
exemption purposes, she suggested that a written and a prac-
tical pretest could increase motivation in the students,
could aid in placing students, and could serve to guide
instructors in planning course work.

In 1961 Semeniuk23 planned an objective pretest—retest
for classification of freshmen in beginning clothing con-
struction at South Dakota State College. In addition she
devised a questionnaire to gain information about the kind
and amount of sewing experience students had had and about
their attitude toward sewing.

The pretest tested for facts and principles or general~
izations in five subject matter areas. Fifty-seven of the
116 items were non-discriminating, having index values of
less than 15 per cent. The reliability coefficient of .69
for the entire pretest was derived by the Spearman-Brown
Conversion Formula. The correlation coefficient between
the pretest scores and the scores on the retest of the pre-
test given toward the end of the term was +.53. Semeniuk
considered the pretest valid to some degree in reflecting
past clothing experience and subsequent performance in the
course. The correlation coefficient between the pretest
score and the garment grade was +.42 while it was +.52

between the pretest score and the final grade.

 

23Alexandra 0. Semeniuk, ”A Pretest and Questionnaire
to Determine Student Levels of Achievement Prior to Enroll-
ment in a Beginning Clothing Construction Course at South
Dakota State College" (unpublished Master's thesis, South
Dakota State College, 1961).

23

Semeniuk recommended that the test items be scrutinized
and arranged in order of difficulty. She suggested that a
practical test be given with the written pretest if sectioning
of students were to be feasible

The revision of the written placement test at Oklahoma
State University and the development of additional devices
for evaluating selected clothing competencies of college
freshmen were the major problems in the study completed by
Witt24 in 1961. The four competencies appraised were: (1)
student ability to apply principles in the selection and con-
struction of clothing; (2) student knowledge of the seleCtion,
construction, and care of clothing; (3) student level of
achievement in using manipulative skills in the construction
of clothing; and (4) student level of achievement in using
judgmental skills in the selection and construction of
clothing. All participants were freshmen clothing students
at Oklahoma State University and Mississippi State College
for Women in 1960-1961.

Witt formulated a questionnaire-check list and admin-
istered it to a pilot group of 30 students. After revision,
the questionnaire-check list was checked by 112 students
whose responses revealed their varied clothing experience

and supported the need for clothing placement devices. The

 

24Mildred Rea Witt, "The Revision and Development of
Selected Evaluation Devices for Ap raising Certain Clothing
Competencies of College Freshmen” unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Oklahoma State University, 1961).

24
placement test was revised on the basis of an item analysis
of responses to the Oklahoma State University Clothing Pre-
test given to freshman clothing enrollees, Fall Semester,
1960.

The coefficient of reliability of .74 was determined
for the written test using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20.
The validity of the evaluation devices was determined by
the judgment of the test constructor and a selected group of
judges. The correlation between scores on items concerning
students' knowledge of clothing selection, care, and con-
struction and scores on items assessing students' ability
to apply principles was +.l6. The correlation of these
competencies implies that a high score on one competency
does not necessarily mean a student will receive a similar
score on another competency. The wide range of test scores
and an analysis of the responses to the individual items on
the written test indicated a definite need for determining a
satisfactory method of placing students in order that they
might be properly challenged.

Witt felt that the test items would have been more
discriminating if time had been allowed for a pilot study.
She recommended that further studies be conducted to improve
the evaluation devices and that the non-discriminating and
free-response items be eliminated from the test, while more

items requiring students to apply principles be added.

25

From a review of the literature concerning pretests

designed for beginning clothing construction courses, the

following conclusions appear to be warranted:

1.

Most pretests which have been designed for
beginning clothing construction courses measure
the objectives of clothing construction in one
institution of higher learning.

Pretests should be scrutinized and revised period-
ically so they will measure adequately the current
course objectives and principles.

Pretests can be used by institutions of higher
learning to exempt exceptional students from a
beginning course, to place students in courses
of an appropriate level, and to guide curriculum
planning.

Sectioning students into classes of various levels
of training promotes a better attitude toward
clothing construction and higher achievement and
interest in the course.

Pretests should measure the extent to which a
student can solve new problems in clothing
construction.

Pretests should include a measure of student mani-
pulative skills to determine the extent to which
the student can use clothing construction techniques.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

Preliminary Step

 

A review of literature was essential to this study to
determine the type, amount, and findings of research which
had previously been done in the field of measurement and
evaluation designed for clothing construction courses at the
college level. A study was made of tests from other insti—
tutions of higher learning in an effort to assess efficient
and effective means of pretesting students' abilities in
clothing construction. It was hoped that inadequacies, as
pointed out by other researchers, could be reduced in the
proposed tests and that the positive characteristics of other
tests might be incorporated in the clothing construction pre—

test at Michigan State University.

Differentiation Between Pilot Test and Pretest

 

The pilot study is one phase in the construction of
educational tests and measurements in which a test is tried
out in its preliminary form. This try—out test, or pilot
test, as it is named in this study, is given in order to
locate as many defects as possible before the final form is

assembled and administered.

26

27
The pretest in this investigation is the pilot test in
its final form. The items which are placed on the pretest
have been submitted to analysis and revision on the basis
of the results of the pilot test. It is expected that a
pretest would be a better evaluation instrument than a pilot
test, since several inadequacies in the performance of the

pilot test have been removed.

Development of the Pilot Test

 

The initial step in the development of the pilot test
was the establishment of the course content for Principles of
Clothing Construction (TCRA 152) which was founded on the
understanding and application of four principles of clothing
construction. A check list25 of topics of instruction was
formulated and presented to clothing instructors at Michigan
State University for confirmation, deletions, and/or addi-
tions. The results of the check list were tabulated to
determine the extent of the confirmation in identification
of topical areas for evaluation.

The confirmed list of course content topics served as
a basis for test item construction. In addition, an attempt
was made to develop approximately 50 per cent of the items
to test for application of principles and 50 per cent of the
items to test for understanding of principles. A proportion-
ate number (see Table l) of the understanding and application

questions were related to each of the four principles of

 

25See Appendix A, p. 54, for a copy of the check list.

28
26

clothing construction and included only areas of course
content deemed apropos by the faculty members. After one
completesmflzof questions was formulated, equivalent quesn
tions were written. All items were then examined by one
expert in test construction and one expert in clothing con-

struction. Items were either revised, rewritten, or

discarded on the basis of the comments of the two experts.

TABLE 1

THE PROPORTION OF ITEMS RELATED TO EACH OF THE
FOUR PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

 

 

Percentage of Items Related
to Each Principle

 

Principle Form A Form B

 

I. Shaping flat fabric to
conform to body curves
requires reducing the
perimeter of garment pieces 12.79 13.92

II. When concentric circles or
arcs of different radii are
used in clothing construc-
tion, certain adjustments
in the circumferences are
necessary. 10.47 8.86

III. Manipulation of any given
material is dependent upon
its component parts. 16.28 15.19

IV. Choice of construction
methods and techniques and
choice of fabric are inter—
related. 60.46 " 62.03

 

 

26See Appendix B, p. 57.

29

The equivalent test items were divided into two tests,
Forms A and B, so that not all of the original questions
would appear on the same form. 0f the 86 items on Form A
there were 41 multiple—choice items and 45 matching items.
The 79 items on Form B consisted of 47 multiple-choice items
and 32 matching items. The answer sheet was constructed so
that each multiple—choice item and each part of the matching
items would be considered as a separate item. All questions
were numbered Consecutively to minimize the chances of re—

spondent confusion.

The Sample of the Pilot Test

 

In preparation for the pilot study, a sample was
selected from five Michigan colleges and universities.
Michigan State University students were excluded from the
pilot study. This was done to eliminate a possible source of
bias due to prior exposure and feedback in the Michigan State
University sample. Letters of inquiry27 were sent to Albion
College, Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan Univer—
sity, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University
asking their cooperation in administering the pilot test.

All but one institution replied, but due to course scheduling
only Western Michigan University could arrange for adminis-

tration of the pilot test.

Administration and Analysis of the Pilot Test

 

The pilot test, consisting of Form A and Form B, was

administered to 24 home economics freshmen who had not

 

27See Appendix C, p.59, for an example of the letter.

30
previously taken a college clothing construction course.
Fifty minutes was allotted the students for writing each
test form with a ten minute break given between the admin-
istration of the two forms of the pilot test. Due to dif-
ferences in opinion concerning the correct answers to the
test items, a panel of three judges served as the final
authority.

Since there was a small number of participants in the
pilot study, the statistical analysis was limited in scope.
Two of the participants were omitted from the statistical
analysis, since they did not respond to all of the items.
The coefficients of reliability using the Analysis of Variance
method were obtained for Forms A and B. To determine the
basis for estimating the discrepancy between the obtained
variance and the true variance, the "among students" and
"among items” sums of squares were subtracted from the total
sum of squares. Hoyt feels that the analysis of variance
estimate "is better than the splitehalves method because the
particular way of splitting the test may be an unlucky
division and result in either an overestimate or an underesti~

”28

mate of the true coefficient of reliability. The Analysis

of Variance formula29 is:

 

28Cyril Hoyt, ”Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis
of Variance,” Psychometrika, VI (June, 1941), 155.

2
9Ibid.

 

 

variance among individuals

S E = error variance.
The coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form
B was obtained by the Pearson Product-Moment Formula. This
method is useful with ungrouped data and does not require
the use of deviations to determine the relevance of the rela-
30

tionship between the two measures.

The Pearson Product—Moment Formula31 is:

rxy= NZXY — (2X) (2: y)
VGNEXE- (ZXVH [sz2r- (iyyq

 

 

where, N = number of cases
X and Y = original scores on Form A and Form B.

The item difficulty indices were derived by computing the per-
centage of students who had responded correctly to each item.32
Test items which showed a very low or very high dif-

ficulty index on the pilot test were revised, but none were

discarded. After the revised items were examined by a test

 

30J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education (3d ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,
1956), p. 140.

31lbid.

32Paul L. Dressel and Associates, Evaluation in Higher
Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961), p. 450.

 

32
construction expert and a clothing construction expert, the
pretest was compiled into Form A and Form B33 similar to

those forms in the pilot test.

The Experience Questionnaire

 

The experience questionnaire3u was formulated to deter-
mine the clothing construction background of each student and
the student's opinion of her level of ability at the time she
enrolled in TCRA 152. Knowledge of the types of garments stu-
dents had made and the media of instruction should help the
instructors understand student progress and/or deficiencies
in the course. Explanations were included with the classifi-
cation of level of ability to obtain a more valid interpre-
tation of student opinions.

The student ratings of their ability to understand and
apply the principles of clothing construction and their final
course grade were correlated by the Pearson Product-Moment
formula.35 This was done to determine if student opinions of
their own ability were related to their final course grade.

Since the dress project for the course was done indepen-
dently of the classroom, the dress scores were correlated with
the number of dresses the students had made prior to the course
instruction. This procedure was undertaken to determine if

the number of dresses made had any effect on the grade received

 

< 33See Appendix D, for a copy of Form A and a copy of
Form B. pp. 61 and 74, respectively.

3L‘LSee Appendix E, for a copy of the experience question-
naire, p. 86.

35See page 31.

33

on the dress project. Again the Pearson Product-Moment

36

formula was employed.

Keying the Test Items

 

Six instructors who were currently teaching TCRA 152
Served as judges for the correct answer key. Each instructor
was supplied with a copy of Form A and Form B and an answer
sheet on which she indicated her choice of the correct
answer for each test item. When questions concerning the
test items or the correct answer arose, the instructors
noted these on the answer sheet. The answers were tabulated
and at least 50 per cent agreement was necessary to validate
an answer. In some cases when agreement did not reach 50
per cent, multiple answers were used in correcting the

respondents‘ answer sheets.

Administration and Analysis of the Pretest

 

The pretest was administered to 82 enrollees in TCRA
152 at Michigan State University during the first laboratory
class Spring Term, 1962. All five sections were given
exactly the same instructions for the pretest when adminis-
tered by the researcher. Fifty minutes were allowed for
writing each form of the test. A ten minute relaxation
period was provided between the administration of Form A
and Form B. The experience questionnaire was given after the

students had completed Form A of the pretest but before they

 

36Ibid.

——

34
were given the relaxation break.

A more detailed statistical analysis was possible with
the pretest than with the pilot test because of the greater
number (241.66 per cent more) of subjects involved in the
pretest. The item analysis included the determination of
the item difficulty and item discrimination indices. The
item difficulty indices were obtained by the same method

37 The difference in the

that was used for the pilot test.
proportion of students in the upper 27 per cent and the lower
27 per cent who answered an item correctly constituted the
item discrimination indices.38
The criterion, or independent measure of a character-
istic, for validation of Forms A and B was the students’
grade in the course. Validation was accomplished by com-
paring the criterion with the students' (1) understanding
scores, (2) application scores, and (3) total scores on
each form of the pretest. These correlations were intended
to measure the relevance, or relationship, between the
scores on the test and the actual trait which the test was
designed to measure. Utilizing the students' original score,

the Pearson Product-Moment method39 was employed to obtain

the coefficients of correlation.

 

37See page 31.

38Dressel, op. cit., p. 450.

39See page 31.

35
Reliability was also considered in the validation
of the test, as it places a ceiling on the possible validity
of a test. In other words, a test can be expected to meas-
ure what it was designed to measure only to the extent that

it is a consistent measure.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The Pilot Test

 

Analysis of the pilot test was based on the responses
of 22 students. The failure of two students to complete all
of the items may have been due to disinterest. However,
failure to respond could not have been due to lack of time.
The fifty minute time limitation for each form was found
sufficient, since all students had completed and turned in
Form A in 45 minutes and Form B in 35 minutes. The possi-
bility that the two partial respondents did not know the
answers to the omitted items was also discounted, as the
researcher gave explicit directions prior to the administra-
tion of the test for students to answer each item even
though their answer might be a guess.

Several items were duplicated on Forms A and B. Because
of the duplication of items and because Form A contained more
items than Form B, the duplicated items were omitted from
Form A for the statistical analysis.

Individual scores on the 86-item Form A ranged from 58
to 32. On Form B the high score was 54 while the low score
was 28 with the total possible score being 79. The mean and

median scores on Form A were 44.1 and 43.0, respectively.

36

37

The mean score on Form B was 43.5 and the median score was
43.0. The facts that the range was fairly small and that the
scores clustered toward the middle of the range might lessen
the desirability of the two tests as predictive instruments.

The coefficients of reliability for Form A and Form B
were .58 and .55, respectively. The coefficient of corre-
lation between Forms A and B was +.52. These figures are
not sufficiently high to indicate that the tests are either
comparable or consistent measures of student ability to
understand and apply the principles of clothing construction.

In the item difficulty indices, 58.20 per cent of the
items on Form A and 48.01 per cent of the items on Form B
did not fall within the prescribed 30 to 70 per cent diffi—
culty range. The large percentage of items not within the
desired range may be one explanation for the low reliability
and correlation coefficients. The indication that items
were too difficult or too easy meant that they must be exam-
ined and revised or rewritten.

Due to the small number of respondents in the sample,
an examination of the item discriminating power was not
feasible. In addition, findings from a small sample should

not be considered highly significant.

The Pretest

 

Response.--The number of respondents who supplied data

for the pretest was 82. Although the number of items on

38

Form A was 86 and the number of items on Form B was 79, the
scores on both forms ranged from 60 to 24. The mean scores
on Forms A and B were 44.06 and 41.91, respectively, while
the median scores were 44 for Form A and 42 for Form B. The
scores were not affected by non-respondents, as all students
completed each form within the fifty minute time allotment.
All students had responded to the items and checked their

answers on Form A in 47 minutes and on Form B in 40 minutes.

Test Key.-—0ne hundred per cent agreement among the
judges on the correct answers to the test items was obtained
for 43.35 per cent of the Form A questionsuoand 44.28 per
cent of the Form B questionsf‘Ll All but one judge agreed on
25.58 per cent and 22.78 per cent of the questions on Form A
and Form B, respectively. Lack of one hundred per cent agree-
ment on several of these items was due to the judges' choice
oftwo rather than one best answer.

Lack of response to an item may have been due to the
item being confusing to the judge. The judge may also have
skipped an item with the intent of going back to answer it
but for some reason have forgotten to respond.

The lack of at least 50 per cent agreement of a correct
answer or the judges' choices of multiple answers may indicate

a poorly written, confusing, or controversial question.

 

40See Appendix F, p. 87.

41See Appendix G, p. 90.

39

Because of differences in the judges' training and opinions
concerning certain processes in clothing construction, some

multiple answers were expected.

Item Difficulty.—-The percentage of items on Form A

 

which appeared above and below the 30 to 70 per cent dif-
ficulty level was 38.37 per cent. 0n Form B the percentage
was 43.04 per cent. A comparison of the difficulty indices
of the equivalent questionsl+2 showed that 24 of the items
which were too easy or too difficult on one form were not on
the other form.

Due to the memory factor, there was some expectation
that the difficulty indices of the duplicated questions
would be lower on Form A than on Form B, since Form A was
administered first. This expectation did not appear to be
entirely sound, since 46.66 per cent of the duplicate items
rated a higher rather than lower difficulty index on Form A.
These results may be attributed to guessing the correct
answers, particularly because the pretest was concerned

with material unfamiliar to the respondents.

Item Discrimination.—-High discrimination indices are

 

desirable for predictive testing. Items with a discrimin—
ation index of less than .20 may be ambiguous or unclear,
or they may be affected by a contestible keyed answer.

43

Examination of the discrimination indices revealed

that 6 items on Form A and 5 items on Form B should be

 

“QSee Appendix H, p. 93. 43See Appendix I. p.95.

40
eliminated from the test. These items showed either a nega-
tive or a zero index figure indicating that the lower 27 per
cent of those tested were responding as well as or better
than the upper 27 per cent of the group tested. The six non-
discriminating items on Form A were not duplicate items.
If the non-discriminating items on Form A had been items
duplicated on Form B, they would automatically be eliminated
in subsequent statistical data.

The items on both forms which had item discrimination
indices of .01 to .20 discriminate only to a small degree.
These items do not have to be eliminated from the test, but
they must be examined carefully before being used for further
predictive testing. If it had been possible to calculate
item discrimination indices for the pilot test, the number
(24 on Form A and 28 on Form B) of slightly discriminating

items probably would have been reduced.

Reliability.--Four students who took the pretest did

 

not complete the course, so their scores were omitted from
the reliability computations. In addition, all non-discrim-
inating items on both forms and all duplicate items on Form
A were not included in the data.

The coefficients of reliability were .734 on Form A
and .732 on Form B. A reliability coefficient of at least
.80 is desirable. However, a test showing a slightly lower
reliability may be used with caution consistent with the

 

43See Appendix I, p. 95.

41
44

margin of error involved.

The reliability of the two test forms may be affected
by the fact that several of the items have low discrimin-
ation indices. These questions, even though they discrim-
inate to a small degree, may be discriminating because of
chance.

The wide range of difficulty of items may have been
one cause for the reliability of the test to be below .80.
The percentage of difficulty of items on Form A ranged from
06.0 per cent to 93.9 per cent. 0n Form B, the percentages
of difficulty ranged from 06.0 to 97.5 per cent. Items
which very few individuals can pass or which nearly all in-
dividuals can pass can do little to alter the discrimination
indices and as a consequence there can be no significant
change in the reliability of the test.

Pretest scores on each form were identified by three
categories: (1) understanding of principles score, (2) ap-
plication of principles score, and (3) total score. The
correlation coefficient (see Table 2) showing the degree of
relationship between the understanding sections of Forms A
and B was +.53. The coefficient for the application sections
of Form A and Form B was +.7O and for the total test scores,
+.72. GuilfordLL5 interprets the strength of relationship for

correlation coefficients equal to .40 to .70 as showing

 

44Guilford, op. cit., p. 146.

“51bid., p. 145.

42
moderate correlation and substantial relationship. A high
correlation with marked relationship is shown by correlation
coefficients equal to .70 to .90. Correlation coefficients
equal to .90 to 1.00 can be described as showing very high

correlation and very dependable relationship.

TABLE 2

THE STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH
CATEGORY IN THE PRETEST

 

 

 

Explanation of

 

Correlation Strength of
Category Coefficient Relationship
Understanding of Moderate correlation,
Principle Score + .53 substantial relationship
Application of High correlation, marked
Principle Score + .70 relationship
Total Score + .72 High correlation, marked
relationship

 

Forms A and B, as equivalent forms, were found to be
reliable enough to be useful. However, they could not be
considered highly reliable tests. There was a marked rela-
tionship between the total test and between the application
sections of the tests. The understanding sections of the
test correlated to a lesser degree than did the total test
or application sections. The understanding sections showed
a moderate correlation and substantial relationship.

Authorities feel that students may be able to apply

knowledge without understanding the application. This

43
contention seems to explain higher correlations on tests of
application of principles and on tests containing application
items than on tests of understanding of principles. The
understanding scores may be composed of a number of guesses
which would be likely to decrease the correlation between
Form A and Form B. On the other hand, since students may
have been more certain of the answers to the application
items, students are expected to be more consistent in their
selection of answers to equivalent items on Forms A and B.
As a result a higher correlation coefficient would be ex-
pected on the application sections or entire test than on

the understanding sections of the pretest.

Validity.—-In order to determine the validity coef-

 

ficients, the final course grade was used as the criterion.
The numerical weightings given to the letter grades were:

A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, and D = 1. No F grades were received
as final course grades.

The correlation coefficient (see Table 3) between the
understanding items on Form A and the criterion was +.5l,
between the application questions on Form A and the criterion
was-t52, and between the total Form A scores and the criter—
ion was*t55. The correlation coefficients on Form B between
the understanding, application, and total scores and the
criterion were-t39,-t50, and-t45, respectively. Validity
coefficients commonly ranged from .30 to .80. However, for

tests for guidance or selection purposes the coefficients

44
46

should be at least .45 for material usefulness.

TABLE 3

STRENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CRITERION
AND EACH CATEGORY OF THE PRETEST

 

 

Correlation Strength of
Category Coefficient Relationship
Understanding—— Satisfactory but not
Form A + .51 highly desirable
Application--Form A + .52 Satisfactory but not
highly desirable
Total—-Form A + .55 Satisfactory but not
highly desirable
Understanding—-
Form B + .39 Unsatisfactory
Application-—Form B + .50 Satisfactory but not
highly desirable
Total—-Form B + .45 Satisfactory but of

minimal desirability

 

The test validity may be affected by the need for
multiple answers to some of the test items. When several
answers are appropriate, the chances that an answer is a
guess is increased; therefore, the item does not provide a
true test of the knowledge involved.

The fact that the criterion contains some degree of
judgment of students' skill may affect test validity. The

understanding and application of principles of clothing

”6Guilrord, op. cit., p. 146.

45
construction could not besegregatedfkmmlthe credit given
for skills in the final course grade. In effect the criter-
ion of grade in the course was not a measure of exactly the
same thing the pretest was designed to measure. However,
the course grade was the closest criterion measure available
at this time.

The validity of the pretest may have been affected by
the fact that the test was not of sufficient length to nec-
essitate use of the entire time limitation for students to
respond to all items. Generally, validity can be increased
for the majority of the scores by increasing the length of
the instrument and not lengthening the time.47

Form A proved to be more valid than Form B. Form A
was considered moderately valid since the coefficient of
validity for the entire test was at the mid-point of the
common validity coefficient range. Form B, on the other
hand, was materially useful but could not be considered as
having desirable validity. The recall of certain items on
Form A may have given incorrect clues to items on Form B.

As a result the validity of Form B could have been altered.

The Experience Questionnaire
Students were asked on the Experience Questionnaire2+8
to list and categorize the number of garments they had con—

structed prior to the course and to judge their ability in

 

u7Lindquist, op. cit., p. 337.
48See Appendix E, p. 86.

46
clothing construction. The ability classifications were

weighted (see Table 4) for statistical purposes.

TABLE 4

NUMERICAL WEIGHTINGS ASSIGNED TO
THE ABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS

 

 

Ability Classification Weighting

 

A Beginner (Have not done any previous sewing) l

Inexperienced (Have sewed but need help in
making a garment) 2

Experienced (Have sewed several garments and
need little help with new ones) 3

Very Experienced (Have sewed several types of
garments in various fabrics,
including synthetics. Need
some help) 4

A Professional (Have sewed all types of
garments for myself and other
people. Rarely need help.) 5

 

When the number of dresses students had made was cor-
related with their grade on the dress project, a correlation
coefficient of +.4O resulted. The coefficient of correlation
between the students' classification of their ability and
their final course grade was +.44. Both correlation coef-
ficients were too low to place any significant degree of
confidence in the effect of experience and of judgment of
one's own ability on course grades.

Since the experience questionnaire was not developed

as an instrument for predictive purposes, the results should

47
not be interpreted as such. To Judge from comments the
researcher received from instructors who used the experience
questionnaire in gaining insight into their students' back-
grounds, the questionnaire seemed helpful.

Several respondents stated that they had no sewing
experience, while one student estimated that she had made
210 garments. The average number of garments made by students
who placed themselves in the various ability classifications
showed a considerable range (see Table 5). The extremely
wide range of number of times students had had the opportun-
ity for clothing construction experience provides some
indication of the extent of the heterogeneity within the

sample.

TABLE 5

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PLACING THEMSELVES IN EACH
ABILITY CLASSIFICATION AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
GARMENTS MADE BY STUDENTS IN EACH CATEGORY

 

Average Number

 

Ability Classification Percentage of Garments
A Beginner 11.0 01.*
Inexperienced 34.1 12.
Experienced 35.4 45.
Very Experienced 12.2 97.

A Professional 7.3 66.

 

*Those students who indicated they had made garments
placed themselves in the ”A Beginner” category because they
had had no clothing construction instruction.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The major problem in this study was the development of
two equivalent forms (Form A and Form B) of an objective type
pretest for the assessment of student ability to understand
and apply the principles of clothing construction. Another
problem was the development of an experience questionnaire
to provide instructors with information concerning past
clothing construction experience of students and student
opinion of their own clothing construction ability at the
time of enrollment in Principles of Clothing Construction
(TCRA 152) at Michigan State University.

The study was supported by the fact that very few
pretests have been developed to test the understanding and
application of specific principles of clothing construction.
In addition, Michigan State University did not have a pre-
test in clothing construction, therefore, the need for such
an evaluation instrument seemed to exist.

A panel of judges from Michigan State University val-
idated the instructional content of the course by means of
a check list showing the content areas and the competencies

being measured. The researcher received assistance from

48

49

one test construction expert and one clothing construction
expert in the development of the instruments.

Twenty—four freshmen home economics students at
Western Michigan University who had not previously taken a
college clothing construction course responded to the pilot
test. Due to the small sample, only coefficients of reli-
ability and correlation and item difficulty indices were
determined. The coefficient of reliability was .58 for
Form A and .55 for Form B. The coefficient of correlation
between Forms A and B was +.52. Items with difficulty in—
dices ofless than 30 per cent or more than 70 per cent were
revised or rewritten before they were included in the pretest.

The same statistical formulas were applied to the pilot
test and the pretest. The coefficients of reliability were
determined by the Analysis of Variance method, while the co—
efficients of correlation were determined by the Pearson
Product—Moment formula. The item difficulty indices were
determined by computing the percentage of students who passed
each item. The difference between the proportion of students
scoring in the upper 27 per cent and the proportion Scoring
in the lower 27 per cent of the pretest group constituted
the item discrimination indices.

The pretest and experience questionnaire were admin-
istered to 82 enrollees in Principles of Clothing Construction
(TCRA 152) at Michigan State University Spring Term, 1962.

Coefficients of reliability of .734 and .732 were obtained

50

for Form A and Form B, respectively. The understanding sec-
tions of the two forms showed a coefficient of correlation
of +.53 while the application sections of the two tests
showed a correlation coefficient of +.70 A correlation co-
efficient of +.72 was obtained for the total scores on the
two test forms. This indicated a high total correlation with
marked relationship between the tests.

The criterion for validation of the pretest was the
final grade in TCRA 152. Coefficients for the entire Form A
and entire Form B were +.55 and +.45, respectively. The co-
efficient for the Form A understanding items was +.5l; for
the Form B understanding items, it was +.39. The application
items showed validity coefficients of +.52 for Form A and
+.50 for Form B when they were correlated with the criterion.

Validation of the correct answer key was determined by
a panel of five judges who were TCRA 152 instructors. A 50
per cent agreement was necessary for validation of an answer.

Tabulations of the experience questionnaire indicated
that some students had no experience prior to TCRA 152 while
one student indicated she had made approximately 210 garments.
The coefficient of correlation between the student classifi-
cation of clothing construction ability and final course
grade was +.44. The correlation coefficient between the
number of dresses made and the grade received on the dress

project for the course was +.40. Neither of these figures

was considered significant.

51

Conclusions

 

The following conclusions were Ch%flfll on the basis of

an analysis of the data in this study:

1.

Since no questions concerning procedure arose during the
administration of the pretest or the experience question—
naire, the directions were assumed to be adequate and
clear.

Because all students had completed the test in less than
the allotted time, the 50 minute limitation was judged
to be sufficient. In light of the findings, the test
could have been lengthened for more efficient use of the
time period or the time period could have been reduced.
Test items might have had higher and more desirable dis-
crimination indices had the pilot study included a
larger sample on which to base test revisions.

Higher discrimination indices might have appeared if more
time had been allowed between the pilot study and the
pretest for examination and revision of the test items
by the test and clothing construction experts and the
researcher.

From inquiries and comments of the respondents after
they had completed the pretest, the pretest seemed to
give the students a preview of the course. The pretest
seemed to help students to become aware of new material
and to promote a desire to learn more about certain

areas of clothing construction.

52
Pretest Form A and Form B were reliable and valid to
the extent of material usefulness.
Relatively little correlation between student opinions
of their clothing construction ability and final course
grades might indicate that students cannot accurately
judge their capabilities.
The quantity of a particular type of garment previously
made by a student does not necessarily indicate her
level of ability, as judged by her instructor, on a

similar garment made as a class project_

Recommendations

 

In consideration of the steps which have already been

taken in constructing a pretest for Principles of Clothing

Construction (TCRA 152) at Michigan State University and of

the findings of this study, the following recommendations

are submitted:

1.

Further studies shOuld be conducted to improve the two
evaluation instruments. Elimination of duplicate and
non—discriminating items and replacement with new items
is essential.

The test validity might be studied in detail by a break-
down of the criterion into defined application, under-
standing, and skill sections. This would provide each
section of the pretest forms with a more equivalent

criterion than was used in this study.

53
The time limitation of the two pretest forms should be

studied and reapportioned according to the length of
the test. Experimentation with shorter time limits
would serve to determine the actual relationship of
time limits to the reliability and validity of the tests.
Because the present answer sheets are time consuming to
score, they might be replaced by IBM scoring sheets.
Change in scoring method would become feasible only
after the need for item analysis data no longer exists.
Further studies should be conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the evaluation instruments as criteria
for sectioning students into classes representing dif-
ferent homogeneous levels of ability.

Experimentation might be done to determine the effec-
tiveness of the pretest as a criterion for allowing
exceptional students to bypass Principles of Clothing
Construction (TCRA 152).

Since skills enters into the performance and final
grade of students, an evaluation device measuring skill

seems necessary.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A CHECK LIST TO DETERMINE IF THE INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT
OF TCRA 152 INVOLVES AN UNDERSTANDING OF AND/OR AN
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

PURPOSE: To obtain the opinion of staff in textiles and
clothing concerning course content taught in the
beginning clothing construction course which
involves understanding of principles, application
of principles, or both understanding and applica-
tion of principles of clothing construction.

To obtain a basis for relating understanding and/or
application of the principles of clothing construc—
tion to course content and test items.

DATE:

 

DIRECTIONS: Course content topics in TCRA 152 are listed
below. Please read carefully and delete any of the topics
which you feel are not appropriate, and add any topics which
you feel have been omitted. Next, go back and place a check
in the left column if you feel the topic requires the under-
standing of a principle. Place a check in the right column
if you feel the topic requires the application of a principle.
If you feel the topic requires the understanding and the ap-
plication of a principle, place a check in both columns.
When you have completed the check list, please return it to
the graduate box in the Textiles and Clothing office.

 

Understanding Application

 

of a of a
Course Content of TCRA 152 Principle Principle
1. Principles of Clothing
Construction
2. Technical Knowledge of
Equipment

3. Sewing Machine Operation
A. Control of the machine

B. Threading the machine

C. Testing tension

D. Testing correct stitch
length

E. Securing thread ends

4. Pa tern Selection

A. Types

B. Taking individual
measurments

 

 

 

54

 

Course Content of TCRA 152

Understanding

of the
Principle

Application
of a
Principle

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

Paper Pattern Fitting

A. Preparation of the pattern

B. Techniques

C. Judging fit of pattern
a. Basic structural lines

D. Preparation of pattern for
alteration

Pattern Alteration

B. Techniques

B. General guides in alteration

Fabric Terms

Layout, Cutting, and Marking

A. Preparation of fabric

B. Planning the layout

C. Cutting

D. Marking

Assembling a Fitting Garment

A. Staystitching

B. Transferred markings as con—
struction guides

C. Analyzing fit of garment

Fabric Selection

A. Type related to style of
garment

B. Suitability of type to
individual's construction
skill

Steps in Garment Construction

A. Sequence

B. Unit method

Lining, Underlining, and Inter-

facing

A. Purpose

B. Techniques

0. Determining type to be used

D. Cutting

Handling Curves and Gussets

A. Stitching concave and convex
curves '
a. Clipping and trimming

B. Stitching and finishing
corners

C. Reinforcing gusset points

D. Standards for a well—
finished gusset

 

 

 

56

 

Course Content of TCRA 152

Understanding
of a
Principle

Application
of a
Principle

 

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Temporary Construction—Basting
A. Types
B. Uses
C. Techniques
Seams
A. Types
B. Uses
C. Techniques
Seam Finishes
A. Types
B. Uses
C. Techniques
Pressing
A. Purpose
B. Techniques
Buttonholes
A. Types
B. Placement
C. Techniques
D. Finishing
Facings
Types of fabrics used
Purpose
Placement
Techniques
. Standards for a finished
facing
Zippers
A. Types
B. Locations
C. Techniques
Waistline Treatment
A. Construction processes
which must precede
B. Techniques
C. Ease
D. Reinforcement
E. Waistbands
Hems
A. Types
B. Techniques
a. Grading
C. Stitches
Belts
A. Materials for stiffening
B. Techniques
0. Loops
Standards of Clothing Con-
struction

LTJUOIIIID

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES AND TYPE OF
MEASUREMENT INVOLVED IN ITEMS ON
FORM A AND FORM B

 

Item Number

 

 

Form A Form B Principle Type of Measurement
1 21 I Understanding
2 25 IV Understanding
3 6 II Application
4 43 I Understanding
5 31 I Understanding
6 4 IV Application
7 24 IV Understanding
8 9 IV Understanding
9 35 III Understanding

10 10 IV Understanding
11 11 ~ III Application
12 32 III Understanding
l3 2 II Understanding
14 37 I Understanding
15 42 IV Understanding
16 41 I Understanding
17 38 I Understanding
l8 3 111 Application
19 39 I Understanding
2O 36 III Application
21 13 III Application
22 45 III Understanding
23 16 III Understanding
24 33 I Understanding
25 44 I Application
26 40 IV Application
27 46 II Understanding
28 48 IV Application
29 7 11 Application
3O 12 IV Application
31 15 II Application
32 22 IV Understanding
33 19 III Understanding
35 17 I Application
36 23 III Application
37 18 IV Understanding
38 47 III Understanding
39 8 III Understanding

 

57

58
APPENDIX B-—Continued

 

 

 

Item Number

 

 

Form A Form B Principle Type of Measurement
40 5 I Application
41 26 IV Application
42 27 IV Application
43 28 IV Application
44 29 IV Application
45 30 IV Application
46 34 III Understanding
47 64 IV Application
48 65 IV Application
49 66 IV Application
50 67 IV Application
51 68 IV Application
52 54 IV Application
53 55 IV Application
54 56 IV Application
55 57 IV Application
56 58 IV Applicationw
57'T II Understanding
58 ] 1 II Understanding
59 ] * II Understanding
6O %_ II Understanding
61 IV Application
62 ] IV Application
63 ] 20 I Application
64 ] IV Application
65 1_ IV Application
66 69 IV Application
67 71 IV Application
68 73 IV Application
69 72 IV Application
70 70 I Application
71 74 IV Application
72 75 IV Application
73 76 IV Application
74 77 IV Application
75 78 IV Application
76 79 IV Application
77 49 IV Application
78 50 IV Application
79 51 IV Application
80 52 IV Application
81 53 IV Application
82 59 IV Application
83 60 IV Application
84 61 IV Application
85 62 IV Application
86 63 IV Application
34 III Understanding

14 11 Application

 

APPENDIX C

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing
College of Home Economics - Department of Textiles -
Clothing . and Related Arts

 

February 23, 1962

Dr. Mary Smith, Head

Home Economics Department
Lansing University
Lansing, Michigan

Dear Dr. Smith:

As a part of my master's thesis I am formulating an instru-
ment to test clothing construction ability prior to
instruction in a college clothing construction class. This
will be a paper—and—pencil test requiring one hour and fifty
minutes. Dr. Beatrice O'Donnell and Dr. Mary Gephart at
Michigan State University are directing this study. We are
hoping you will be interested in participating in this test.

Students in our beginning course in clothing construction
come to us with very different backgrounds. It is expected
that a test, such as the one I am pretesting, will be of help
in sectioning or determining levels of ability and under-
standing among students.

I would like to ask your cooperation in allowing me to admin—
ister this test to your freshmen who are enrolled in home
economics but who have not yet taken a college clothing con-
struction course. Any information obtained about your students
or concerning the test would be available for your use.

Would March 6 through 9 or March 12 satisfactorily suit your
academic schedule?

Please let me know your decision, possible days and hours
which would be most convenient for you, and the number of
students who would be available for testing.

Yours truly,
Mildred Rothgarn/s/

Mildred Rothgarn
Graduate Student in Textiles and Clothing
Michigan State University

Mary Gephart/s/
Mary Gephart, Chairman
Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts Department
Michigan State University
59

APPENDIX D

FORM A AND FORM B

60

APPENDIX D

PRETEST IN

PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND RELATED ARTS DEPARTMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

FORM 5

Do not open the test booklet until you are told to begin.
Although this test will not affect in any way your grade

in a clothing construction course, carefully read and
answer each question as best you can. Write the letter
which indicates your choice of the correct answer in the
blank at the right of the question number on the answer
sheet. Do not write on the test booklet. Write legibly
and use capital letters. If you complete the test early,
go back and check your answers to be sure they are correct.
When time is called, close the test booklet and turn it in

with your answer sheet.

61

62

MULTIPLE-CHOICE

 

Place at the right of each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the word or phrase which best completes a state—
ment or best answers a question.

1. The distance around a garment piece is its:

A. cut edge.
B. perimeter.
C. seamline.
D. secant.

2. Lining is placed in a wool skirt to:

lessen the sagging of the garment fabric.

lessen the strain on the garment fabric.

shape the wool skirt to the waist and hip curves.
support the hem.

UOUJID

3. At a dress paper pattern fitting a bulge appeared at
the armscye of a bodice front. In order to produce a
properly fit garment alteration must be done on the:

A. bodice front.

B. bodice front and facing.

C. bodice front and sleeve.

D. bodice front, facing, and sleeve.

4. Which of the following does not radiate from a prominent
body curve?

A. Curved hem.

B. Gathers

C. Released fullness.
D. Tucks.

5. "Ease" is a term used to refer to:

A. the lack of difficulty in fitting two seamlines together.

B. the method of attaching a longer seamline to a shorter
seamline without apparent fullness.

C. the skill and smoothness with which you can sew two
seamlines together.

D. none of these.

6. When constructing a worsted Jacket the neckline darts
should be pressed on a:

A. regular ironing board.
B. needleboard.
C. sleeve board.
D. tailor's ham.

10.

ll.

12.

63

Bound or corded buttonholes are easiest to make on
firmly woven:

A. cotton.
B. nylon.
C. silk.
D. wool.

To insure a perfect stitch and good tension, test the
fabric by stitching a short distance on:

A. a double thickness of fabric on crosswise grain.

B. a double thickness of fabric on lengthwise grain.

C. a double thickness of fabric on the bias.

D. a single thickness of fabric on the lengthwise grain.

Usually garment pieces are cut so the center front and
center back are parallel to the lengthwise grain of the
fabric because:

A. the garment pieces are easier to match than if they
were out another way.

B. the garment pieces drape better than if they were out
another way.

C. the garment pieces stretch less than if they were cut
another way.

D. none of these.

When you select a pattern for a wool plaidjumper, which
of the following is of most importance?

A. Ease of care.

B. Ease of alteration.

C. Suitability to the fabric.

D. Suitability to other items in your wardrobe.

Which of the following fabrics has an "up and down" to it?

A. Moire taffeta.

B. Percale print.

C. Rayon gabardine.
D. Cotton velveteen.

Most rough fabrics will:

A. not stretch.

. stretch a great amount.

. stretch only on the warp.
. stretch only slightly.

UQUI

13.

14.

16.

17.

18.

64
When two circles are concentric:

A. one is twice as large as the other.
B. they are tangent to each other.

C. they have identical arcs.

D. they have different radii.

The neckline seam allowance of this facing pattern is
indicated by the dotted line. What is the name of the
curve at the neckline?

A. Concave.
B. Convex.
C. Radial.
D. Rounded.

 

Wool is shaped most satisfactorily by:

A. ironing it against the grainline.

B. dampening it slightly and smoothing it over the edge
of an ironing board.

C. soaking it in water, shaping it by hand, and allowing
it to dry in the desired position.

D. steaming it over a curved wool—covered surface.

Adding or removing width and length in any part of a
pattern requires careful examination of the:

A. direction sheet which came with the pattern.

B. markings on the pattern so alterations are done
onlywhere the pattern indicates they should be done.

C. pattern pieces pinned together and tried on the
figure.

D. width of all the seam allowances.

A seam must be pressed flat before further construction
is done because:

A. the perimeter of the garment piece is reduced when
the seam allowance remains unpressed.

B. the notches are easier to match because they are
pressed when the seam is pressed.

C. the garment will not retain its shape when it is worn.

D. it will be easier to see the amount of seam allowance
which must be removed to eliminate excess bulk.

Which of the following fabrics has greatest extensibility?

Gingham.

Nylon knit.
Worsted suiting.
Silk shantung.

UOUUID

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l9. Gussets are used in a garment to:
A. smooth out a seamline.
B. provide decoration on the garment.
C. reinforce a seamline.
D. lengthen a seamline.
20. In most cases the best results are obtained if inter-
facing is cut on the:
A. bias.
B. crosswise grain.
C. lengthwise grain.
D. same grain as the area to be interfaced.
21. Which waistband pattern is placed properly on this
plain black skirt fabric?
A. B. C. D.
-- ? 3;"
I l -——eA
I l l
l 3 None of
l 0 these
m
L_l
l l I.-. ‘
22. Staystitching is done to prevent:
A. stretching while making the garment.
B. raveling while making the garment.
C. facings from popping out after the garment is con-
structed.
D. a slightly full seamline from being gathered while
it is being stitched.
23. Preshrinking cotton fabric means:
A. pressing fabric with a steam iron.
B. rolling fabric in a damp sheet.
C. soaking fabric in lukewarm water and rolling it in
a towel to dry.
D. washing new fabric in a washing machine and hanging
it up to dry.
24. Darts are stitched in a garment:

A. in areas where there is little strain.

 

Fold

25.

26.

27.

28.

B.

C.
D.

If

66

on the grainline so the garment pieces will not be
distorted.

parallel and perpendicular to the floor.

so they release fullness for prominent body curves.

you are long-waisted, your bodice pattern pieces

must be lengthened by slashing and spreading:

U0 WP

across ‘the length of the pattern piece.

across the length of the pattern piece below the
armscye and at the waistline dart.

across the width of the pattern piece.

the waistline dart.

For the neckline finish of a silk shantung dress the
raw edge of a self—fabric facing should be finished by:

A.

Cow

The radius of a

A0
B0
C.

D.

binding.

catch-stitching it to the garment.

top-stitching rayon seam tape to the raw edge.
turning under the raw edge l/8 inch and pressing it

to a very sharp crease.
circle is:

the distance across the circle through its center

point.

around the circle.
diameter of the circle..
secant of the circle.

the distance
one-half the
one-half the

Which of the following pattern layouts is correct for
a velveteen dress?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B C. D
,7 1,; ”n m *1
K [I t: r I F
:3 (/ ’.//_..\J l l 3 -
a ,”:\’\1 1 . [2 None of

these

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

67

What should be done to flatten the seam allowances of
the neckline seam of a cotton dress?

A. Clip.

B. Notch.

C. Stitch 1/8 inch from the raw edge.
D. Steam and stretch.

Grading must be done on the seams of:

. gingham-
nylon knit.
silk shantung.
. wool coating.

UOUND

The hem of a flared skirt made of loosely—woven wool
fabric should be:

A. cut off and faced with narrow twill tape.
B. cut off, shrunk, and edge—stitched.

C. gathered, turned up, and edge-stitched.
D. gathered, turned up, and shrunk.

Not all methods of transferring pattern markings are
suitable for cotton organdy because:

A. it has a great amount of finish on it which will
absorb certain transfer markings.

B. it has a rough surface and the markings will not
show on the fabric.

C. it is washable and the markings will wash out of
the fabric.

D. none of these.

The purpose of interfacing fabrics is:

A. to dry quickly in laundering.

B. to give support to the garment piece.
C. to give weight to the garment piece.
D. none of these.

Uneven ends of fabric are out along one continuous
thread to determine:

A. crosswise grain of the fabric.
B. lengthwise grain of the fabric.
C. the fold of the fabric.

D. true bias of the fabric.

When you machine stitch two unequal seamline lengths
together:

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

68

A. a lapped seam is necessary.

B. either piece of fabric may be on tOp.

C. the shorter piece of fabric may be on top.
D. the longer piece of fabric may be on top.

Bias strips of fabric should be stitched together:

. alternately on the lengthwise yarns and on the bias.
on the bias.

on crosswise yarns.

on lengthwise yarns.

vow»

When constructing a dress, pressing should be done:

A. before a seam or dart is to be crossed by another
line of stitching.

B. before the waistline seam is stitched.

C. after a seam or dart is made.

D. after the garment is completed.

Fabric stretches most on the:

A. crosswise grain because these threads are weaker
than the lengthwise threads.

B. lengthwise threads because these threads hang
perpendicular to the floor so they stretch.

C. selvage because these yarns intersect at an angle.

D. bias because these yarns slip past one another with
the pull of an angle.

The term "up and down" of the fabric means that:

A. there is a design on the fabric which gives it a
right and a wrong side.

B. the design of the fabric goes in one direction.

C. the fabric must be hung to dry so the warp is
perpendicular to the floor.

D. the warp threads of the fabric differ from the
filling threads.

In order to change the location of a seamline but not
alter the size of the garment:

A. remove basting and mark the new seamline with a row
of pins.

B. remove the basting and place the correction line
parallel to the seamline.

C. leave the basting in the garment and place pins
to mark the new correction line.

D. pin the folded edges to the outside and place the
correction line parallel to it.

69

Al.—45. Attached below are five samples of machine stitching.
Place on the answer sheet the letter of the sample
‘ stitch which is best for each of the fabrics listed
below:

Al. Cotton print.

42. Wool coating.

43. Rayon or silk shantung.
44. Organdy.

45. Seersucker.

A. B. C. D. E.
D E t 1 r, l V v

 

 

 

 

 

L-. I — - "‘ ’ _ ”-t a” w_i

46. The grainline of fabric in a cut garment piece may be
distorted by:

A. cutting all seam allowances one~half inch larger
than the amount allowed on the pattern.

B overhandling the fabric while the pattern markings
are being transferred to the garment piece.

C. preshrinking of the fabric.

D all of these.

MATCHING

47.—51. Listed below in Column A are statements pertaining
to methods of transferring pattern markings to fabric.
Listed in Column B are methods of marking. Indicate in
the space following each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the appropriate method described in each
statement. (A method may be used more than once.)

A--Statements

47. A quick and satisfactory method of marking a
medium weight fabric of plain color.

48. A quick and satisfactory method of marking very
sheer fabrics.

49. A quick and satisfactory method of marking wool
fabrics which will be constructed ”at one sitting."

7O

50. A method of marking which does not wash out of
fabric very easily.

51. A method of marking which is durable for a very
thick, fluffy wool fabric.

B—-Methods

. Dressmaker's carbon and tracing wheel.
Pins.

Tailor's chalk.

Tailor's tacks.

Thread.

. Wax chalk.

None of these.

Q'TIJLTJUOUJP

52.-56. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are iron temperatures. Indicate in
the space following each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the temperature which is best suited to each
fabric. (A temperature may be used more than once.)

A--Fabrics B--Temperatures
52. Cotton print. A. Low (225 - 275? F.)
53. Silk shantung.
54. Wool flannel. B. Medium (325 - 3750 F.)
55. Acetate taffeta.
56. Nylon net. C. High (425 - 4750 F.)

57.-60. Listed below in Column A are terms associated with
circles. Listed in Column B are descriptions pertaining
to circles. In the space following each number on the
answer sheet write the letter of the appropriate
description. (A description may be used more than once.)

A--Terms B—-Descriptions
57. Arc A. Circles which are identical.
58. Circumference B. The curved enclosing section
59. Concentric of the circle.
60. Congruent C. One-half the circle's

diameter.

D. Any straight segment of a
circle.

E. None of these.

61.-65. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are methods of finishing seams.
Indicate in the space following each number on the
answer sheet the letter of the most time—saving, yet
appropriate, method. (A method may be used more than
once.

71

A--Fabrics B-—Seam Finishes
61. Cotton sateen Pinked
62. Wool flannel Bound

63. Silk shantung
64. Acetate taffeta
65. Linen suiting

Catch-stitched to the garment
Edge-stitched

Edge turned under and stitched
. Overcast

None of these

QWWUOUHD

66.-70. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are methods of preshrinking fabrics.
Indicate in the space following each number on the
answer sheet the letter of the appropriate preshrinking
method. (A method may be used more than once.)

A—-Fabrics B-—Methods
66. Cotton print A. Press with a pressing cloth.
67. Linen suiting B. Roll in a damp sheet, leave
68. Nylon knit for several hours, and press
69. Acetate taffeta lightly.
70. Wool flannel C. Soak in lukewarm water and

roll in a sheet to remove
excess moisture.
D. None of these.

7l.—76. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are effects produced by gathering
various fabrics. In the space following each number
on the answer sheet write the letter of the effect
which will appear. (An effect may be used more than once.)

A—-Fabrics B-—Effects
71. Gingham A. Gathers stand out from the
72. Faille waist giving a bouffant
73. Fine wool crepe appearance.
74. Organdy B. Gathers fall softly from
75. Sailcloth waist to hip.
76. Silk shantung C. Gathers fall in soft folds

from waist to hem.

D. Gathers look like thick
bulky folds.

E. None of these.

77.-8l. Listed below in Column A are locations of seams.
Listed in Column B are types of seams. Indicate in the
space following each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the appropriate t pe of seam. (A seam type
may be used more than once.)

77.
78.

79.
80.
81.

82.-86.

82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

72
A-—Locations

Waistline of cotton shirtwaist.
Side seam of a skirt of very
sheer fabric.

Center back seam of a heavy
wool jacket.

Bodice underarm seam of a
washable cotton sports blouse.
Center back of a rayon skirt
lining.

B—-Seams

A. Plain

B. French

C. Flat felled
D. Lapped

E. None of these

Listed below in Column A are types of garments.
Listed in Column B are methods of making buttonholes.
Indicate in the space following each number on the
answer sheet the letter of the most appropriate method.
(A method may be used more than once.)

A--Garments

Cotton print housedress. A.
Wool flannel suit jacket. B.
Linen coat. C.

Loosely-woven silk dress.
Terry cloth bathrobe.

B—-Methods

Machine-worked.
Bound or corded.
Machine stitched
twice around the
edge of bottonhole
slit.

None of these.

NAME

COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY

23:)
24.

l.

2.

\OCIJNONUW-tw

10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

ANSWER SHEET FOR PRETEST IN

73

PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

FORM A

 

26.
27.
28.
29.

31.
32.
33.

35.
36.
37.
38.

40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

DATE

 

 

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
5o.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

58.
59.
6o.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.

67.
68.
69.
7o.
71.
72.
73°
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
8o.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

PRETEST IN

PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND RELATED ARTS DEPARTMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

FORM B

Do not open the test booklet until you are told to begin.
Although this test will not affect in any way your grade
in a clothing construction course, carefully read and
answer each question as best you can. Write the letter
which indicates your choice of the correct answer in the
blank at the right of the question number on the answer

sheet. Do not write on the test booklet. Write legibly

 

and use capital letters. If you complete the test early,
go back and check your answers to be sure they are correct.
When time is called, close the test booklet and turn it in

with your answer sheet.

74

75
MULTIPLE-CHOICE

 

Place at the right of each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the word or phrase which best completes the state-
ment or best answers the question.

1. The curved part of a circle can be divided into sections
called:

A. arcs.

B. elipses.

C. structural lines.
D. tangents.

2. Circles which have the same center but different radii
are called:

A. concentric.
B. congruent.
C. graduate.
D. tangent.

3. Fabrics which are extensible:

A. are durable so they will wear well.

B. can be used for more than one type of garment.
C. can be washed.

D. will stretch.

4. When constructing a wool dress, pressing of bust darts
should be done on a: ‘

A. needleboard.
B. regular ironing board.
C. sleeve board.
D. tailor’s ham.

5. In order to alter the size of a garment and change the
location of the seamline:

A. remove basting and readjust the line by pinning.

B. leave the basting in and place pins to mark the new
correction line.

C. pin the folded edges to the outside and place the
correction line parallel to it.

D. remove the basting and place the correction line
parallel to the seandine.

6. You are fitting a pattern for a dress for your sister.
You find that extra length is needed in the upper back
area and extra width is needed in the shoulder area of
the bodice pattern. Which pattern pieces must be altered?

10.

11.

12.

76

A. Bodice back, sleeve, and bodice front.

B. Bodice back, sleeve, and skirt back.

C. Bodice back, skirt back, and bodice front.
D. Bodice back, bodice front.

What should be done to flatten the seam allowance of the
center back seam of a straight cotton skirt?

A. Clip.

B. Notch.

C. Steam and stretch.
D. None of these.

The term Hup and down” of fabric means that:

A. the design of the fabric runs either up or down.

B. it must be ironed or pressed up and down on the
lengthwise threads.

C. the pattern of the fabric is directional.

D. it must be hung to dry so the selvage is perpendicular
to the floor to prevent stretching.

To insure a perfect stitch and good tension, test the
fabric by stitching a short distance on:

A. a single thickness of fabric on the bias.

B. a double thickness of fabric on crosswise yarns.
C. a double thickness of fabric on lengthwise yarns.
D. None of these.

When you select a pattern for a ruffled cotton dress,
you must consider its suitability to the fabric and:

A. ease in laundering.

B. placement of the ruffles so they will not interfere
with alterations which may need to be made.

C. your measurements.

D. your figure type.

Which of the following fabrics requires that all of the
pattern pieces be laid in the same direction?

A. Satin.
B. Napped.
C. Stripe.
D. Twill.

Which of the seams in a wool suit should be graded?

A. Center back seam of the jacket.
B. Dart of the jacket.

C. Side seam of the skirt.

D. Waistline seam of the skirt.

77

13. Which back bodice pattern is placed properly on this
knit fabric?

A. B. C. D.

 

 

 

 

z/a 3 None of

these

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4. Assume that these two pieces of fabric are stitched
together on the dotted lines and that the seam allow-
ances are pressed open. What should be done to the
seam allowance of pattern A?

 

 

 

. Clip.

Grade. “‘\
Notch.
Shrink. A
. Stretch.

Trim.

. None of these.

Q'IJEIJUOWP

 

 

 

 

 

l5. Refer to the above question and indicate what should
be done to the seam allowance of pattern B.

16. Preshrinking wool flannel means:

A. rolling fabric in a damp sheet.

B. pressing fabric with a steam iron and stretching the
selvage into shape.

C. soaking the fabric in lukewarm water and rolling it
in a towel to dry.

D. washing new fabric in a washing machine and hanging
it up to dry.

17. When you stitch two unequal lengths of seams together
by hand:

A. either piece of fabric may be on top depending on
the placement of the seam.

B. the shorter piece of fabric should be on top.

C. the longer piece of fabric should be on top.

D. each seamline should be machine stitched first
before they are stitched together.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

womr

78
When constructing a dress, pressing should be done:

A. after a seam or dart is made.

B. after the garment is completed.

C. before a seam or dart is to be crossed by another
line of stitching.

D. before the waistline seam is stitched.

Interfacing fabrics differ from garment fabrics in
order for them:

A. to give support to the garment fabric.
B. to give weight to the garment fabric.
C. to dry quickly in laundering or dry cleaning.
D. not to show under the garment fabric.

A satisfactory and quick method of finishing the seams

of cotton fabric is to:

A. leave them unfinished because cotton fabrics ravel
very little. '

B. edge stitch 1/8 inch from the raw edge.

C. turn under 1/8 inch and stitch close to the fold.

D. pink.

The perimeter of a garment piece is its:

A. cut edge.

B. circumference.
C. length.

D. width.

Not all methods of transferring pattern markings are
suitable for velvet because:

A. it is washable and the markings will wash out of the
fabric.

B. it has a rough surface and the markings will not
show on the fabric.

C. it is made of a synthetic fiber which absorbs certain
markings.

D. none of these.

Bias strips of fabric should be stitched together:

on crosswise threads or yarns.

on lengthwise threads or yarns.

on the bias.

alternately on the lengthwise threads or yarns and
on the bias.

79

24. Bound buttonholes are most difficult to make on
loosely-woven:

A. cotton.
B. linen.
C. nylon.
D. wool.

25. Underlining is placed in a wool skirt to:

A. lessen the strain on the garment fabric.

B. prevent the hemline from sagging.

C. shape the wool skirt fabric to the body curves.
D. support a curved hem.

26.-30. Attached below are five samples of machine stitching.
Place on the answer sheet the letter of the sample
stitch which is best for each of the fabrics listed below.

26. Cotton print.

27. Wool coating.

28. Rayon or silk shantung.
29. Organdy.

30. Linen suiting.

A. B. C. D. E.

I! A (I

j

i e ' '1- ’, _
A I » l A-G_! I}

-——\-_ .,__. _ — —.-

-. _._. t--.‘ . till -_....__ . _._

 

 

 

 

 

31. The method of fitting a longer seamline to a shorter
seamline to obtain a smooth hand-sewn seam is called:

A. blocking.
B. easing.
C. fitting.
D. gathering.

32. Usually smooth-textured fabrics will:

stretch only on the filling threads.
stretch only on the warp.

stretch only slightly.

. not stretch.

UOUij

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

80

The major function of a dart is to:

A.
B.
C.

D.

fit the garment pieces to the midriff of the body.
provide ease.

prevent garment pieces from stretching in areas where
there is strain on the fabric.

shape the garment pieces.

The grainline of fabric in a cut garment piece may be

A.
B.
C.
D.
A

on

U C) tn P

distorted by:

cutting all seam allowance one—half inch larger than
the amount allowed on the pattern.

preshrinking the fabric.

overhandling the fabric while the pattern pieces

are being marked.

all of these.

pattern may be laid out differently from the layout

the instruction sheet if:

fabric can be saved by turning the pattern pieces
in different directions on the fabric.

the fabric can be refolded so that all fold lines

on the pattern are placed on the fold of the fabric.
lengthwise grain, crosswise grain, and the bias of
the fabric are not changed.

each pattern piece is pinned to the fabric and
measured carefully after it has been pinned.

The interfacing along the center front of this wool
woven-plaid bodice (indicated by the dotted line)
should be cut on:

A.

UOtD

the same grain as the area to be interfaced.
crosswise grain.
lengthwise grain.
the bias.

 

 

The neckline curve is most appropriately called a:

A.
B.
C.
D.

concave curve.
convex curve.
radial curve.
rounded curve-

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

42+.

81
A seam must be pressed flat:

A. before another seam is stitched over it.

B. after it is stitched so it won't be overlooked.
C. after the darts are pressed.

D. after the garment is completed.

A gusset is added to a garment to:

A. provide decoration on the garment.

B. reinforce a seamline.

C. increase the perimeter of a garment piece.
D. shape the garment to the body curves.

The raw edge of the center back seam allowance of a
heavy wool jacket should be finished by:

A. binding.

B. catch—stitching it to the garment.

C. turning under the raw edge 1/8 inch and stitching
close to the fold.

D. none of these.

The best fit from a paper pattern will be obtained
if the:

A. hip measurements of the body and the pattern compare.

B. pattern is measured before the garment is cut.

C. pattern pieces are pinned together and tried on the
figure.

D. pattern size is the same as the size that fits you
best in ready-made garments.

Taffeta may be best shaped by:

A. pulling it over the edge of an ironing board.
B. soaking it in water.

C. steaming it.

D. none of these.

Which of the following must radiate from prominent
body curves?

A. Darts.

B. Tucks.

C. Gathers.

D. All of these.

Your pattern has two darts which fall from the back
neckline downward parallel to the center back. Which
alteration should be made if you.have slightly promin-
ent shoulder blades?

45.

46.

47.

48.

Fold

82

. Move the dart to the shoulder seam.

Move the dart to the armscye.

Move the dart to the waistline.

Eliminate the dart and slash and spread the pattern
lengthwise to add fullness from the shoulder to the
waist of the pattern piece.

UOWP

What should be done to the curved areas of each garment
section to prevent them from stretching while the
garment is being constructed?

A. Apply tape to the areas which will stretch.

B. Interface with a firm but sheer fabric.

C. Staystitch by machine.

D. Machine stitch the areas which will be handled most.

The distance from the center of a circle to the outside
edge of a circle is called the:

A. arc.

B. diameter.
C. radius.
D. tangent.

Fabric stretches most on the:

A. lengthwise grain because these threads hang perpen-
dicular to the floor so they stretch.

B crosswise grain because these threads are weaker
than the lengthwise threads.

C. bias because the threads slip past one another with
the pull of an angle.

D raw edge because the threads are meshed together
more loosely than they are in the middle of a piece
of fabric.

Which of the following pattern layouts is most economical
for a white broadcloth dress?

 

 

 

 

A. B. C. D.
-I?
\
/ o o
'o m 60
H m lr—'\ 8 None of
g 3 3 these
6 o
m m

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83
MATCHING

49.-53. Listed below in Column A are locations of seams.
Listed in Column B are types of seams. Indicate in the
space following each number on the answer sheet the
letter of the appropriate type of seam. (A type of
seam may be used more than once.

A--Locations B--Seams

49. Waistline seam of a muslin A. Plain

trial dress. B. French
50. Side seam of a percale skirt. C. Flat felled
51. Underarm seam of a roll-up D. None of these

sleeve.
52. Side seam of a crepe lining.
53. Center back seam of a heavy
wool coat.

54.-58. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are iron temperatures. Indicate
in the space following each number on the answer Sheet
the letter of the temperature which is best suited to
each fabric. (A temperature may be used more than once.)

A--Fabrics B-—Temperatures

54. Light weight linen dress A. High (425 - 4750 F.)
fabric. '

55. Heavy weight denim. B. Medium (325-3750 F.)

56. Medium weight gingham. ’ .

57. Medium weight acetate C. Low (225 - 2750 F.)
taffeta.

58. 85% wool——l5% nylon flannel.

59.-63. Listed below in Column A are types of garments.
Listed in Column B are methods of making buttonholes.
Indicate in the space following each number on the
answer sheet the letter of the most appropriate button-
hole method. (A method may be used more than once.)

A--Garments B--Methods
-59. Cotton print housedress. A. Machine—worked
60. Wool flannel blazer. B. Bound or corded
61. Light weight linen dress. C. Machine stitched
62. Loosely-woven silk dress. around the edge
63. Terry cloth bathrobe. of the slit and
overcast

D. None of these

84

64.—68. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are methods of transferring pattern
markings to fabric. Indicate in the space following
each number on the answer sheet the letter of the ap-
propriate method. (A method may be used more than once.)

A-—Fabrics

64. Cotton print.
65. Worsted suiting
66. Silk shantung
67. Terry cloth

68. Plain organdy

B-—Methods

Chalk

Creasing

Pencil

Pins

Tailor's tacks
Dressmaker‘s carbon
and tracing wheel
None of these

Q ’IJLTJUOUIID

69.—73. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are methods of preshrinking fabrics.
Indicate in the space following each number on the
answer sheet the letter of the appropriate method.

(A method may be used more than once.)

A—-Fabrics

69. Cotton print A.
70. Wool flannel B.
71. Linen suiting

72. Acetate taffeta C.

73. Nylon knit

E.

B--Methods

Press with a pressing cloth.
Soak in lukewarm water and
iron dry.

Soak in lukewarm water and
roll in a sheet to remove
excess moisture.

. Roll in a damp sheet, leave

for several hours, and press
lightly.
None of these.

74-79. Listed below in Column A are types of fabrics.
Listed in Column B are effects produced by pleating
fabrics. Indicate in the space following the number
on the answer sheet the letter of the effect which
would be produced. (An effect may be used more than

once.)

A--Fabrics B--Effects
74. Gingham. A. Pleats stand out from the
75. Heavy wool crepe. waist producing a bouffant
76. Cotton organdy. look.

77. Faille.
78. Sailcloth.
79. Nylon chiffon.

WUOW

Pleats fall softly from the
waist to the hip.

Pleats fall in soft folds
from the waist to the hem.

. Pleats are thick bulky folds.
None of these.

NAME

COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY

l.

\0 (EN O\Ul DUO R)

H FJ'tA H 44 +4 H F4 +4
CDNQUW-Il‘wwl—‘O

[UH
OKO

85

ANSWER SHEET FOR PRETEST IN

PRINCIPLES OF CLOTHING CONSTRUCTION

FORM B

 

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
3o.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35-
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

DATE

 

 

41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
4o.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

61.
62,
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
7o.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.

86

AQHmC 680m @662 .moaponChm wCHUCHoCH .moamnmm
mCOHCm> CH mpCmECmm mo woman HMCm>om wozom o>mmv
UmoCofiCono mmo>

 

ACHoC UmoC mHoCmm .mHQooC
Cono UCm Manama Com mpCmEme
mo momma Ham cozom o>mmv
HmCOAmmoMOCQ g

AmmCo 36C
can: can: oaepaa coon one
mpCmEme HmCo>om bosom m>mmv

UooCmHComxm

 

 

ApCoEme
m wCmeE CH QHoC

ComC psn bosom m>mmv

pooCoHConoCH

AwCfizom mCOH>oCQ
sz 6Com poC o>mmv
CoCCHwon C

 

AoCo xooCov

deoHCOCC Coaposmmeoo wCfiCpoao 36C on UoCHmw >Hm50H>oCQ empoazoCx madam pCm UCmpm
quUCC 0p mpfiafipm C50» bump so» vasoz 30C .ooCoHCmmxo mCOH>oCQ CCoz mo mammn on Co

 

mpHCm

maaam

mpCme

mXomHm CCm mpCOCm
mmEmmmm

nonpofio Haom
mommoCQ

mpmoo

mpCHCm oCm momsoam
mCOCQ<

 

.Hoo mace «mac: gnasv Aaaoc ssocpasv nzao nmam swam
CH opHC3 oEom p< oEom p< mu: COHCCW CoaCom

 

 

 

 

 

poz om ooposnmeoo opmz mpCoEwa 6Com:

 

 

muCoEme mo momma

 

.oome m>MC Com mpCmEme mo ConECC map woman CmCOCQ on CH opdoaU

ICH UCm pCmCo on mo Coupon on pm moomam meHp on CH pCoECmm 6C9 mo oEmC 6C» mpfimz
.UopmHH poC oCm COHCZ mpCoEme couospmeoo o>MC 50% CH .mCECHoo o>fipomamom on CH
mCoQECC on» wCHowHC .popoCCmeoo o>MC Com pCoEme mo camp Como mo CoQECC on moommm
on CH mCMOHUCH .onon Umpmfifi mCm popospmeoo o>MC mmE Com COHC3 mpCoEme mo momma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BzHom mg<mm momH>m<

m>HBomAm mo QmmHdem mow¢2
mw< NEHmmm>HZD mo mwmqqoo

MB¢Q mz<z

mmH¢zonBmde mozmHmmmxm

m xHQZMmm<

87

 

 

 

mm.mC a a a 0 a a a CC
mm.mw C C a C C C C Cm
mm.mm 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 sm
00.00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mm
mm.mC 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 mm
00.00C C C C C C C C am
m:.Cs 0 0 Co a 0 a 0 0 0 mm
00.00C a a a a a a a CC
:C.sm C C C to C C C C C Cm
mm.mC C C C C C C 0 0m
00.00C C C C C C C C 0C
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.0w a oncoanom oz a C a a a sa
00.00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C a a a a a a a CC
00.00C C C C C C C C ma
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CH
00.mC 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0C
mm.m m w C 0 C 0 C 0 m
00.00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
mm.mm C C C a C C C s
00.00C C C C C C C C C
00.00C C C C C C C C m
00.00C a a a a a a a :
mm.mm 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 m
mm.mw C C C C C a C m
00.00C C C C C C C C C
Ccowwonma Com co CC > >C HCH CH C soosoz
CwmpCmoCCm CCZCC< momvsh ECCH

 

< Emom mom wmm mm3mz< ZO Bzmzmmmwd .mmwmbh

m xHQZMCm<

 

88

 

 

mm.mC a C a C C a a CC
00.0m C C C so C C to a C Co a C to C C CC
00.00C a a a a a a C 0C
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
00.00C C C C C C C C Cm
mm.mm C 0 C C C C C Cm
00.00C a a a C a a a CC
CC.sm a 0 a C C to a a a mm
mm.mm C C C C C a C am
CC.CC a C a C a a C mm
CC.CC C. 0 C 0 0 0 C mm
®©.©© Q C CO Q CCCOCCCC 02 U Q Q Q Cm
©©.©w d CCCOCCCC 02 C m to C C C C on
:C.sm 0 C Co C 0 0 0 a 0 ma
ww.©© a Q CCCOCCCC 02 a o m Co a o w:
Cs.mm a: 0 Co a a a a a a s4
00.00C C C C C C C C C:
CC.CC 0 0 0 C C 0 0 m:
00.0m a C a 0 a 0 a a:
00.00C C C C C C C C m:
CC.CC 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 m:
CC.CC 0 0 0 C C 0 0 C:
00.00C 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0:
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
00.00C C C C C C C C Cm
00.00C a a a a C a a Cm
00.00C C C C C C C C Cm
CC.CC 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 mm
00.00C a a C C a a a :m
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
mm.mC C 0 C C C C C mm
00.00C C C C C C C C Cm
00.00C C C C C C C C 0m
Csoswonma CoC co C> > >C CCC CC C Consaz
Cmmpmmommm CCZmCd mmmmsm ECCH

 

 

 

coscCocoo--C CCCzCCCC

 

89

 

 

m.mC C C C 0 C C C CC
W ”CC C w C C .C C C to C C CC
CC C
CC.CC C C C C C C no C C CC
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC 0 0 0 0 0 C Co 0 0 0C
CC.CC C C to C C C C C C as
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C CC
mm.mC 0 0 e C 0 0 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 ms
CC.CC C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C 0 to C C C C C C CC
mm.mC C C C 0 C C C 0C
oo.om Q CmCOCnCC 02 Q Q C Q Q 0C
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
mm.mC 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 CC
mm.mC n 0 0 C 0 0 0 CC
CC.Cm C L
CC.CC C _ CCCo C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C L
mm.mm m C C C C C C CC
mmumm C C C C C C C mC
CcowwoCCC CoC Co CC C >C CCC CC C Coneaz
CmCCCCCCCC CCBCCC mCmCCh . ECCH

 

 

 

UCSCHCCOQIIC XHflzmmCC

 

9O

 

 

00.0m C C C o C C C Cm
CC.CC C C C C C 0 so C C CC
CC.CC 0 0 0 C 0 C 0 CC
CC.CC 0 0 C 0 C 0 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC 0 C so 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
mm.mC C C C C C C C mm
mm.mC C C C C C C C Cm
00.00C C C C C C C Cmcoanms oz 0C
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.00C 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 CC
mm.mC 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 CC
00.00C C C a C. C C C CC
00.00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
00.0m 0 0 C C 0 0 C mC
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C C so C C C C CC
CC.CC C C so C C C C C C 0C
00.00C C C C C C C C m

00.00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C

00.00C C C C C C C C C

mm.mC C C C C C C C C

00.0m C C C C C C C m

00.00C C C C C C C C C

00.00C C C C C C C C m

00.00C- C C C C C C C m

00.00C C C C C C C C C

CsosoosCC CCC so C> > >C CCC CC C sonsaz

CCCCCCCCCCCCCC .CCBCCC. CCCCCC ECCH

 

 

m Emom mom wmm mm3mz< zo ezmzmmmwd .mmwQDC

w XHszCCC

91

 

 

 

oo.om C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C C so C C C so C C CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C QC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C mm
CC.CC o C so 0 o o C o 0 CC
CC.CC o o o C o o 0 CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C Cm
oo.ooC C C C C C C C mm
CC.CC C C so C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C mm
00.00C C C C C C C C CC
oo.ooC o o o o o o 0 CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C on
CC.CC C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C CC
oo.ooC o o o o o o 0 CC
oo.ooC o o o o o o o CC
oo.ooC o o u o o o 0 CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC o u so C o o o o 0 CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
oo.ooC o o o o o o 0 mm
oo.ooC C C C C C C C Cm
oo.ooC C C C C C C C Cm
CC.CC o C o C o o 0 CC
CC.CC o C so C o o o o 0 CC
CC.CC o C so u u o o o 0 CC
00.00C C C C C C C C mm
CC.CC u o o o o o C mm
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
psowmosCC Com so C> > >C CCC CC C sonasz
mwmpcmosmm CCZCCC CCCUCC ECCH

 

 

 

UCSCHCCOOIIU XHszmm<

 

92

 

 

 

 

CC.CC o C o o o C 0 CC
CC.CC C C C C C C C CC
mmnmm m w C so C C u C C C CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C o C o C CC
mmnwm m w C o C C o o CC
CC.CC C C C C o C C CC
CC.CC C mmCoCmms oz C C C C C CC
CC.CC o o o C so 0 o o C CC
oo.ooC C C C C C C C oC
CC.CC o o o C C o 0 CC
CC.CC C C C C so C C C C CC
m. C C
Wu. C C C o C o C C C so C CC
CC.CC C C C C so C C C C CC
oo.CC C C
0C.CC C C C so C C C C C so C C CC
CC.CC C _
CC.CC C C so C C 0 so C.C C C C CC
CC.CC C C C o C C C CC
CCoECCsCC CmC Co CC C >C CCC CC
M0 H :
CCCCQCOCCC .szmCsC. CCCCCC / CCCWQR2C<
WpH
/

UCSCCPCOOIIU XHszmmd

APPENDIX H

A COMPARISON OF ITEM DIFFICULTY INDICES OF EQUIVALENT
ITEMS ON FORM A AND FORM B

 

 

Form A Index Form B Index
Item Number Percentage Item Number Percentage
1 56.0 21 50.0
2 41.4 25 81.7
3 34.1 6 47.5
4 68.2 43 79.2
5 75.6 ‘ 31 90.2
6 32.9 4 42.6
7 57.3 24 52.4
8 20.7 9 v 15.8
9 69.5 35 87.8
10 69.5 10 62.1
11 73.1 11 60.9
12 41.4 32 63.4
13 30.4 2 69.5
14 47.5 37 50.0
15 64.6. 4 47.5
16 39.0 41 76.8
17 50.0 38 50.0
18 73.1 3 76.8
19 19.5 39 25.6
20 39.0 36 20.7
21 50.0 13 57.3
22 73.1 45 82.9
23 40.2 16 45.1
24 87.8 33 82.9
25 52.4 44 19.5
26 29.2 40 46.3
27 93.9 46 97.5
28 17.0 48 71.9
29 68.2 7 51.2
30 50.0 12 46.3
31 19.5 15 29.2
32 56.0 22 35.3
33 91.4 19 89.0
34 62.1 14 52.4
35 47.5 17 25.6
36* 21.9 23* 26.8
37 41.4 18 39.0
38 82.9 47 80.4
39 53.6 8 43.9
40 ' 50.0 5 15.8
41* 34.1 26* 41.4

 

*Duplicate Items

93

94
APPENDIX H--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

Form A Index Form B Index
Item Number Percentage Item Number Percentage
42* 10.9 27* 08.5
43* 34.1 28* 43.9
44* 35.3 29* 43.9
45 39.0 30 32.9
45* 31.7 34* 45.1
47 60.9 64 60.9
48 06.0 65 89.0
49 25.6 66 36.5
50 42.6 67 68.2
51 52.4 68 13.4
52 73.1 54 60.9
53 85.3 55 90.2
54 73.1 56 37.8
55 84.1 57 85.3
56 87.8 58 29.2

5; g1.7 I

5 2.1 .
59 59.7 ] 1 93.9
60 71.9 1

61 14.6

62 40.2 ]

63 19.5 ] 20 74.3
64 45.1 ]

65 63.4 1

66* 58.5 69* 35.3
67* 18.2 71* 21.9
68* 26.8 73* 25.6
69* 41.4 72* 36.5
70* 26.8 70* 45.1
71 43.9 74 74.3
72 34.1 75 54.8
73 52.4 76 73.1
74 85.3 77 64.6
75 76.8 78 65.8
76 43.9 79 56.0
77 92.6 49 06.0
78 50.0 50 71.9
79 42.6 51 57.3
80 54.8 52 37.8
81 4 .3 53 45.1
82* 73.1 59* 89.0
83 82.9 60 68.2
84 74.3 61 34.1
85* 60.9 62* 43-9
86* 41.4 63* 37-8

 

APPENDIX I

A COMPARISON OF THE ITEM DISCRIMINATION INDICES OF
EQUIVALENT ITEMS ON FORM A AND FORM B

 

 

 

Form A Form B
Item Number Index Item Number Index

1 .14 21 .09
2 .09 25 .27
3 .36 6 .32
4 .23 43 .09
5 .59 31 .23
6 .45 4 .59
7 .14 24 .32
8 .27 9 .18
9 .18 35 .18
10 .18 10 .27
11 .36 11 .86
12 .41 32 .18
13 .23 2 .50
14 .18 37 .41
15 .41 42 .36
16 .50 41 .18
17 .23 ’ 38 .64
18 .09 3 .41
19 .00 39 .27
20 .14 36 .05
21 .23 13 .45
22 .50 45 .36
23 .14 16 .45
24 .23 33 .23
25 .41 44 .05
26 .14 4O .36
27 .09 46 .00
28 .18 48 .18
29 .59 7 .32
30 .59 12 .36
31 .41 15 .14
32 .55 22 .27
33 .00 19 .05
34 .73 14 .36
35 .18 17 .05
36* .09 23* .27
37 .50 18 .55
38 .32 47 .41
39 .50 8 .50
40 .18 5 .32
41* .32 26* .14
42* .14 27* .09
43* .11 28* .45

 

*Duplicate Items

95

96
APPENDIX I--Continued

 

 

 

 

Form A Form B
Item Number Index Item Number Index

44* .41 29* .36
45 .14 30 .18
46* .23 34* .36
47 .32 64 .27
48 -.09 65 .14
49 .23 66 .32
50 .23 67 .32
51 .50 68 -.09
52 .23 54 ~ . 5
53 .09 55 -.05
54 .45 56 .09
55 .36 57 .05
56 .05 58 .09
57 .41 ]

58 .09 ]

59 .55 1 1 '09
60 .36 +

61 .00

62 .18 ]

63 .18 ] 20 .41
64 .27 ]

65 -.14 ]

66* .59 69* .14
67* .27 71* .14
68* .23 73* .41
69* .32 72* .41
70* .14 70* .36
71 .18 74 .32
72 .05 75 .09
73 .23 76 .05
74 .18 77 .14
75 .14 78 .05
76 .32 79 .05
77 .05 49 .05
78 .41 50 .23
79 .23 51 .68
80 .59 5 .27
81 .41 53 .14
82* .77 59* .32
83 .36 60 .36
84 .41 61 .36
85* .50 62* .09

86* .27 63* .36

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Books
Anderson, Paul R., and Others. College Testing.
Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education,
1959.

Arny, Clara Brown. Evaluation in Home Economics. New
York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1953.

 

Burnham, Paul 8., and Crawford, Albert B. Forecasting
College Achievement. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1946.

 

 

Cook, Stuart W., Deutsch, Morton, Jahoda, and Selltiz,
Claire. Research Methods in Social Relations.
1st ed. revised. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1960.

 

Dressel, Paul L., and Associates. Evaluation in Higher
Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961.

 

 

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and
Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co.,

1956.

 

 

Justman, Joseph, Robbins, Irving, and Wrightstone, J.
Wayne. Evaluation in Modern Education. New York:
American Book Co., 1956.

 

Lindquist, E. F. (ed.) Educational Measurement. Menasha:
George Banta Publishing Co., 1951.

 

Sfiafford, Ivol. Fundamentals in Teaching Home Economics.
2d. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1954}

 

Travers, Robert M. W. Educational Measurement. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1955.

 

Tyler, Ralph W. Constructing Achievement Tests. Columbus:
Ohio State University, 1934.

 

97

98

Articles and Periodicals

 

Ebel, Robert L. "Inventories and Tests," Education, LXXXI

(October, 1960), 67-99.

 

Henkel, Jean, and Seronsy, Louise Baird. ”First Course in
Clothing and Textiles,” Journal of Home Economics,
XLIII (March, 1951), 195-197.

 

Henkel, Jean, and Wright, Janet Smith. ”Achievement in
Clothing Construction,” Journal of Home Economics,
XLIII (October, 1951), 626—628.

 

Hoyt, Cyril. ”Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of
Variance,” Psychometrika, VI (June, 1941), 153-160.

 

1

 

Huston, Hazel H. ”Measuring Achievement in Home Economics,'
Journal of Home Economics, XXIX (January, 1937), 19-
22. I

Parker, Garland G. "Statistics of Attendance in American
Universities and Colleges,” School and Society, XC
(January 13, 1962), 5-21.

 

Scates, Douglas E. "Fifty Years of Objective Measurement
and Research in Education," Journal of Educational
Research, LXI (December, 1947), 241-264.

 

Scheidemann, Norma V. "The Earliest Recorded Objective
Test," School and Society, XXIX (June 1, 1929), 702.

 

Unpublished Material

 

Hoskins, Mercedes Nelson. "Construction of a Basic
Clothing Pretest for Use in the Colleges and Univer-
sities of New Mexico." Unpublished Master's thesis,

New Mexico State University, 1959.

Nieman, Mary Read. "Effectiveness of the Placement Test
for Sectioning Students in the Elementary Clothing
Construction Course." Unpublished Master's thesis,
Iowa State University, 1961.

Patson, Nellie Katherine. "Prediction of Construction
Achievement Using Saddler Clothing Test, Dexterity
Questionnaire, and Four Spatial Relations Tests.”
Unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa State College,
1952.

99

Saddler, Jane. "Placement Test for College Home Economics
Students: I. Elementary Clothing Construction."
Unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa State College, 1945.

Semeniuk, Alexandra 0. ”A Pretest and Questionnaire to
Determine Student Levels of Achievement Prior to
Enrollment in a Beginning Clothing Construction
Course at South Dakota State College." Unpublished
Master's thesis, South Dakota State College, 1961.

Stewartson, Elizabeth H. "An Experimental Approach to the
Teaching of Beginning Clothing Construction."
Unfinished Master's thesis, Michigan State University,
expected to be completed in August, 1962.

Witt, Mildred Rea. "The Revision and Development of
Selected Evaluation Devices for Appraising Certain
Clothing Competencies of College Freshmen.” Unpub—

lished Ph. D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University,
1961.

ROOM USE 04L!

 

 

 

 

3".” -

‘Mu- -- .. .-.

no.“

MW"WW“WWII”WW"IH

293 031