Talk:Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update required[edit]

The definition of the composite scores for this article are outdated as of 2002. Someone should update them. And it'd also be nice if someone could provide additional informtion on how the VE score is calculated. Could we get a copy of this table that the article references? - Shaheenjim 23:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing for officers[edit]

The airforce personnel Center has a report builder tool for demographics reports:

http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/vbin/broker8.exe?_program=ideas.IDEAS_Step1.sas&_service=vpool1&_debug=0

I see the AFWT as a report category for enlisted men, but I do not see it for officers. Is this test used uniformly to place all armed forces personnel or only enlisted men?

24.206.125.213 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)NMIKESCI[reply]

Is it an IQ test?[edit]

It's an IQ test. - Unsigned comment by 69.72.40.42

Is it only an IQ test, or does it also measure skills acquired, psycological factors, amd other measures of potential success/failure probabilities. - Comment by 24.206.125.213
The ASVAB is not an IQ test. That is an important point. You may have a very high IQ, but be poorly educated and thus score poorly on the ASVAB. Rather, it is a test of academics (paragraph comprehension, arithmetic reasoning, word knowlege, et cetera), with a time constraint element to it (i.e., the different tests are timed. For example, you may have only 15 minutes to answer a series of math questions, and so on). - Unsigned comment by 65.202.240.54
Ignorant. It is an IQ test. You can have a high aptitude, but be poorly educated. Language is important for communication. The military is a team first vocation, and the military has a limited budget to train people, to include communication skills. Communication and education are important in combat, and quick thinking (time) keeps people alive. For example, Infantry needs support NOW. Field Artillery responds (or any other x combat method). Of course in the article, it had to have a racial aspect. While institutionalized systemic racism/sexism like Affirmative Action is important to note, it gets people killed, and so on. You are correct in the fact it does not measure things like strength. Thanks for your edit.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:600a:40:2ce3:c4d3:b7be:11df (talk) 05:50, 2014 May 30 (UTC)
It's a proxy for IQ. AFQT results correlate very strongly with intelligence test results. Sure, you can have a smart but entirely uneducated person do very badly on the test, or a stupid yet well-trained person score average, but in general people who are more intelligent tend to do better at this test. 71.206.188.10 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an IQ test. It may not be a traditional Stanford Binet IQ test, but it is one. The test design makes more sense if you read read up on theories of multiple intelligences in scholarly works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.231.255 (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the GT portion of the Army Classification Battery, prior to 1978 is considered an IQ test (S.D.17) as high IQ organizations such as Mensa and the Triple Nine Society will accept qualifying scores for entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.191.16.123 (talk) 20:16, 2016 November 11 (UTC)

Navy scores[edit]

Where is Navy explained? Navy: what are ENG, ADM, GT, Mec, HM, Mec2, EL, Nuc, Bee, Ops? - Unsigned comment by 172.192.150.179

VE[edit]

and what is VE on the standard scores? - Unsigned comment by 172.192.150.179

It's mentioned in the "Armed Forces Qualification Test" section that VE = VE = PC + WK. It's listed under "Standard Scores" as Verbal Expression (VE). 70.230.148.247 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my PC score is 63, my WK score is 67, my VE score is 66. therefore it isn't quite as simple as adding the scores together, though averaging them works.--99.189.233.36 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You add PC + WK then look the result up in a table that gives you the VE. Todd Carnes (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AS[edit]

What is AS? It is referred to many times in the Composite Scores section, but I do not see it defined anywhere. 70.230.148.247 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS is a combination of AI and SI, i don't how it is derived (added, averaged, gained from chart, etc.). the ASVAB website said so, although it said the computer version doesn't lump them together, which is probably true when you take the test, but my printout from a MEPS simply has AS.--99.189.233.36 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these percentiles?[edit]

Are the standard scores percentiles? - Unsigned comment by 172.192.150.179

The standard scores are not percentiles,they are the comparison with the people who took the test. The percentile scores compare you to everyone else in the nation who is in your catagory (grade, age, ect.)StormTrooper2011 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has inconsistent information on percentiles. In one part of the history section is says "In 2004, the test's percentile ranking scoring system was re-normalized, to ensure that a score of 50% really did represent doing better than exactly 50% of test-takers." In the other it says "An AFQT percentile score indicates the percentage of examinees in a reference group that scored at or below that particular score. For current AFQT scores, the reference group is a sample of 18 to 23 year old youth who took the ASVAB as part of a national norming study conducted in 1997. Thus, an AFQT score of 90 indicates that the examinee scored as well as or better than 90% of the nationally-representative sample of 18 to 23 year old youth. An AFQT score of 50 indicates that the examinee scored as well as or better than 50% of the nationally-representative sample." Both statements cannot be true because ASVAB test takers are not representative of 18 to 23 year old youth in the nation generally. It grossly undersamples the most able (who disproportionately go to college and do not pursue a career in the military) and the least able (such as high school dropouts, particularly those without GEDs, and those with criminal records are discouraged from taking the test as they can't enlist anyway), in addition to being gender atypical and atypical in other respects demographically. The language should be clarified, but I have not done so because I don't know the correct answer. Ohwilleke (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force requirements[edit]

Isnt the required score to join the air force 50? - Unsigned comment by AceMan14

Updated all required scores except for the Air National Guard, current as of yesterday. Cliffsteinman (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

It says in the article that there are 10 subtest in the ASVAB, but in the listing there are 11 subtest titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.29.129 (talk) 04:28, 2010 March 3 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is now tagged for improvement of references. Some of the sources on the Intelligence Citations list should help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "Standards for Enlistment" section[edit]

I am in the process of researching the military with the intent to join and have gotten different answers almost everywhere I go. For example, the Air Force website says you can join with a GED and an ASVAB score of 65. A recruiter told me a score of 60. And in an on-line chat with someone (over the site), they said that you can not join with a GED period, no matter how high you score. A similar thing happened for the Army. I haven't researched any other branches. DanielDPeterson (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

check out this site. It tells you just about everything you need to know about minimums for ASVAB and GED issues. Cliffsteinman (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be a recruiter and I can tell you why you're coming across this problem. It's because the requirements change on an almost daily basis sometimes. Recruiter's work on a quota system. The powers that be decide we need X number of people to maintain our readiness levels. Then they say that means that we need Y number of recruits from each of our recruiters this month. As the month progress they keep looking at how far from goal they are. If they don't like what they see they tend to either a) lower the recruiter's goals or (more likely) b) lower their requirements in order to meet their goals. The first of the month comes and everything starts all over again. I used to see especially large swings in the requirements amongst the Army recruiters, but all the branches do it to one extent or another.Todd Carnes (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.official-asvab.com/understand_coun.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lagrange613 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is AI?[edit]

The composite scores in the Navy section list AI as one of the components required in the composite score's formula. However, nowhere is the meaning of AI explained.Todd Carnes (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see next question for the summary answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.220.208 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also what is SI?[edit]

An early 1970's ASVAB score report for a person lists that person's "SI" and "AI" scores as well as various ones included in this article. After possibly missing ones, the sequence is CS WK AR TK SP MC SI AI EI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AI is Automotive Information, SI is Shop (like a wood shop) Information. AS is a combination of the two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.220.208 (talk) 03:16, 2019 April 15 (UTC)

ASVAB? AFQT?[edit]

The article switches back and forth between these two abbreviations without explaining the difference. Are they equivalent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.39.171 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) is a TEST that is given to all soldiers before swearing in and to some high school students. The AFQT is a score derived from four sections of the ASVAB(Please note that there are 10 sections in the ASVAB). AFQT is scored in percentiles based on a national study done in 1997 with individuals between the ages of 18-23 year old. What this means is that if you get "50" on the AFQT then, you got a score that is better than 50% of the individuals who took the test in 1997. Same goes for any other score you may get from 1-99. The AFQT is an important number in the ASVAB since that will determine if you may enlist in the branch you choose. (All of the scores of the ASVAB gets used to determine your Composite Score or also known as Line Scores which will determine your eligibility in military jobs.) I hope this helped~! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:66D1:3900:AD54:F39D:3C9A:A94B (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Aptitude Area Scores of the Army Classification Battery AR AS[edit]

From my point of view, you certainly are to be congratulated. This is the closest I have have come to finding interpretations of the subject areas from my 1968 DA FORM 1811 filed with my DD FORM 214. I have been searching for a very long time. Of course, I'm not much closer to interpreting the scores either at this point. In addition to the categories that do match my form there are quite a few not listed. Here's my list (with scores):

COA - - -

COB - - -

EL 115 Electronics

GM 115 General Maintenance

MM 109 Motor Maintenance

CL 114 Clerical

GT 118 General Technical

RC 129 Radio Code

IN 121 Infantry

AE 105 Armor-Artillery-Engineering

28 Jul 66 Fort Dix NJ

If you do not believe these categories are possible enhancements to your coverage of the topic, perhaps you might be so kind as to direct me to another site that might be a better place for my purposes.

Much thanks and best wishes. RonB

Thank you RonB. This posting has the same codes as my AFQT form DA 1811 from 1969. I have wondered what those codes mean. Now, if I could only find out what the numbers represent. DW Bry — Preceding unsigned comment added by DW Bry (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery → ASVAB – I'd say that the abbreviation is used more than ever. As shown with this ngram, "ASVAB" is used far more than "Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery". Additionally, the ngram indicates a continued increase of usage of "ASVAB" and a continued decrease of usage of "Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery". How says everyone? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yep. Schierbecker (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Consider WP:AT on abbreviations as article titles and WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles linked from there: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only [emplhasis added] recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. This is not established by the evidence provided. We generally don't use acronyms as article titles. The threshold for using an acronym as a title is fairly high. We have NATO, NASA and laser. The last is now more recognisable as a word than as an acronym. The convention generally (not just Wiki) is to give a name in full at first usage of an acronym. Raw ngram results don't account for this and the need for this. Furthermore, ASVAB is a redirect to this page. There is no intrinsic benefit to renaming the page. Using the name in full appears more consistent with the guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this Google trends graph indicates a far higher search ratio for ASVAB. The and this Google trends for the NATO example you provided also show a similar, far higher search ratio for NATO ASVAB in ASVAB and Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, than NATO in NATO and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cinderella157. This topic is not comparable to NATO in terms of notability and renown. Readers outside of United States are likely not to know the formal name, let alone the abbreviation of the aptitude test of US Armed Forces, while NATO is perfectly understandable among the average readers. – robertsky (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery&oldid=1198992736"