About
18 percent of all GMAT test takers sit for the exam more than once,
which creates the admissions challenge of deciding how and if to use
multiple sets of scores (multiple
GMAT Scores).
Should you consider only the most current scores? Should the highest
scores be used? Should scores from different test administrations be
averaged? Or, should you combine the highest scores across subtests?
There isn’t a simple mathematical answer to this question, as “the
answer depends on your philosophy,” says Lawrence M. Rudner, vice
president of research and development and chief psychometrician at
GMAC. This note presents information about test takers who retake the
GMAT and have multiple GMAT Scores and different approaches you can
use to guide your decision.
Who
retakes the GMAT exam?
The
18 percent of the GMAT test taking population who retake the exam are
a special, self-selected group. Examinees who perform as they
expected, or better than they expected, have no motivation to retake
the four hour exam. We can logically infer that those that retake the
GMAT are not happy with their original scores and are confident they
can do better says Lawrence M. Rudner. Graduate Management News, Oct.
2011 and GMAC Research Report, May 2011 indicates that those who
retake the test are less likely to have finished their first exam and
are more likely to have GMAT scores that are not aligned with their
undergraduate GPAs.
On
average, the self-selected examinees who retake the GMAT obtain only
a modest increase in Total score – about 31 points. These gains are
consistent with the gains found for the SAT1 and the LSAT2,3. In
contrast, the average gain for a random sample of test takers is
expected to be zero with a standard deviation of 28 points. While the
gain is modest, another way to look at the data is that slightly more
than 50 percent of the repeat test takers have gains that are more
than chance fluctuations. The extra gain is not surprising. Those
that retest are not a random sample and there is a reason they are
sitting for the exam again. Not everyone gains when they retake the
exam. In fact, almost 25 percent of test takers have lower second
scores.
Competing
philosophies
Because
no test is perfectly reliable, scores for an individual taking a test
multiple times will fluctuate around the person’s true score. Thus,
one can argue that the average of scores is a better estimate of the
test taker’s true ability than any single set of scores. However,
this assumes that the test taker is equally well prepared and equally
attentive across testing sessions.
As
human beings, students are not always consistent. Whether a test is
intended to measure typical or optimal student performance, changes
in things such as the test taker’s attitude, health, and sleep may
affect the quality of their efforts and thus their test taking
consistency.
Test
takers often make careless errors, misinterpret or forget test
instructions, inadvertently omit test sections, or misread test
items. It is for that reason GMAC encourages all test takers to
become familiar with the exam and offers a variety of affordable and
free test preparation material. Nevertheless, many test takers sit
for the GMAT with minimal practice the first time and many are
penalized because they did not properly pace themselves.
Approximately 25 percent of test repeaters did not finish either the
quantitative or verbal sections the first time and their gains on
retesting were higher.
Lowest
score philosophy
How
should one respond to careless mistakes or lack of preparation? On
one hand, schools want students that pay attention to details and
properly prepare for class. If an applicant is not going to prepare
for the GMAT, how can you expect them to fully participate in their
education? Therefore, one could argue that just the lowest scores
should be considered.
Highest
score philosophy
On
the other hand, if a person has a second higher score, we can assume
they prepared better and their new score better reflects their
ability. Isn’t their true ability a major part of evaluating fit?
If one thinks a test taker should not be penalized for poor
performance when they have shown a higher capability, then
consideration of the highest scores is the logical choice.
Set
of scores philosophy
If
one is going to examine the highest scores, then which set of scores
should be examined—the best scores from one sitting or a
combination of best scores from different test administrations? An
argument to use the best set of scores from one sitting is that it
places everyone on a level playing field. The scores represent the
best the test taker is able to do, given the allocated test time.
Unlike the combination approach, no one has an advantage by virtue of
concentrating their preparation on one subtest or another.
Combined
scores philosophy
An
argument for the use of combined scores is that it gives the test
taker the benefit of every doubt. Each subtest measures an
independent set of skills. The best score on each independent skill
is a reflection of the test taker’s highest capability. A counter
argument is that the test taker may have “gamed” the system by
concentrating their efforts on one subtest the first time and then
the other for the second. However, that should not matter. There is a
point of diminishing returns for test preparation and again, the
tests are independent.