THE CONCORDANCE RELATIONSHIP
April 2023
Between the Classic Learning Test (CLT) and
the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
PREPARED BY:
Tracy Gardner, Ph.D: Chief Psychometrician, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
Natasha Wilson, Ph.D.: Director of Assessments, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
Eren Asena: Research/Statistical Analyst, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
Noah Tyler: Education Policy Director, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
Jeremy Tate: CEO, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
Hong Jiao, Ph.D., Psychometric Consultant
Liru Zhang, Ph.D., Psychometric Consultant
Copyrighted Material: DO NOT COPY OR DISTRIBUTE
Copyright © 2015-2023 Classic Learning Initiatives, LLC. All Rights Reserved. No part
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of Classic Learning Initiatives, LLC. Classic Learning
Initiatives and CLT are registered trademarks of Classic Learning Initiatives, LLC.
Copyright © 2023 Classic Learning Initiatives, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
All MetaMetrics items and passages are MetaMetrics Intellectual Property and are used with
permission herein.
Dear Reader,
I am pleased to present to you our latest concordance report titled, "e Concordance Relationship
Between the Classic Learning Test (CLT) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT®)." As the Chief
Psychometrician, I am proud to share the ndings of our concordance analysis, which represents a
signicant step towards supporting an alternative assessment for college admissions, as part of the
larger educational freedom movement of our time.
e Classic Learning Test (CLT) is a college entrance exam that was launched by our founder,
Jeremy Tate, in 2015 as a response to the national movement to renew the foundations of
education. Our assessment is anchored in ideas and texts that have withstood the test of time,
proving their value, inuence, and appeal to generation after generation. e CLT focuses on
perennial questions about human nature, knowledge, and experience, which have the power to
awaken a passion for learning. Since its foundation, CLT has expanded its suite of assessments,
including the development of the CLT10 and CLT8, which are already available, and the CLT3-
CLT7, which will be available operationally in the 2023-2024 academic year.
In this report, we conducted a concordance study between the CLT and SAT. A concordance study
is a statistical analysis that compares the scores of two dierent tests, providing a way to interpret
how well these tests relate to each other. is analysis is particularly important for students who
were exposed to a liberal arts education in high school, as the CLT oers an alternative assessment
for college admissions grounded in the ideas and principles of the greatest minds of history. By
establishing a concordance relationship between the two college entrance exams, we can oer
an alternative test to students by providing them with more options to showcase their academic
abilities.
We are humbled by the growth that CLT has seen since our original concordance was developed
in 2017. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Mr. Asena for his technical
leadership of this project in running all of the statistical analysis, Dr. Jiao and Dr. Zhang for their
thought leadership in the design and full replication of the study, Dr. Wilson for her assessment
leadership, and Mr. Tyler for his leadership in education policy in executing this study. I would also
like to thank Mr. Tate for his vision in founding CLT and his foresight into the profound impact that
this assessment has had on tens of thousands of CLT test takers over the past seven years.
As the Chief Psychometrician, I have a passion for psychometrics, measurement, assessment, and
educational choice and freedom, and it has been an honor to serve as a leader on this project.
We hope that this report will be a valuable resource for students, educators, researchers, and
admissions professionals alike.
Sincerely,
Tracy Gardner, Ph.D. Chief Psychometrician, Classic Learning Test (CLT)
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Concordance Tables .......................................................................................................................... 6
Section II: Content Alignment Between the CLT and the SAT ............................................11
CLT Content ..............................................................................................................................................11
SAT Content ..............................................................................................................................................13
Comparing the CLT and the SAT .............................................................................................................17
Section III: Linking the CLT and the SAT Scores .....................................................................20
Section IV: Methods .........................................................................................................................20
Data ...........................................................................................................................................................20
Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................................................25
Section V: Results .............................................................................................................................26
Correlations Between the CLT and the SAT ...........................................................................................26
Pre-Smoothing ..........................................................................................................................................29
Concordance Tables .................................................................................................................................31
Section VI: Summary and Discussions ......................................................................................31
References ..........................................................................................................................................32
Appendix A: CLT-SAT-ACT Concordance Tables ....................................................................33
Appendix B: Concordance Table With Standard Errors (SE) ..............................................39
5
I. Introduction
T
he purpose of this study is to build a concordance relationship between the Classic Learning
Test (CLT) and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT®) total and section scores. e CLT is a college
admissions test that launched in December 2015 as an alternative to the SAT (CLT, 2018) and the ACT®.
Based on a classical liberal arts education model, the CLT has become popular among homeschooled
students and students who attend private and classical schools (CLT, 2018). On the other hand, the SAT is
taken mostly by public school students (NCES, 2009). Despite this dierence in the student populations
they serve, the CLT and the SAT measure similar skills and both of them were designed to be used for
college admissions. erefore, building a concordance relationship between the two tests will assist
educators and decision makers in utilizing CLT scores in admissions and scholarship programs. We also
present the concordance relationship between the CLT and the ACT, but it is directly based on the ocial
concordance relationship between the SAT and the ACT as established by the College Board and the ACT
(College Board, 2018), and is not established in this study.
Concordance is a form of linking, and in particular, scale alignment (Dorans, 2020). e goal
of scale alignment is “to transform the scores from two dierent tests onto a common scale” (Dorans,
2020, p.3). However, linking diers from equating, which adjusts for dierences in diculty between
separate forms of the same test (Kolen & Brennan, 2014). e forms that are equated must be built to
the same test specications and measure the same latent construct for the equated scores to be used
interchangeably. In contrast, linking aligns the scales of tests that are built to dierent test specications
but measure similar constructs. e constructs measured by the tests should still be similar enough to
justify linking them and use the linking relationship to evaluate a student’s performance across dierent
tests. e degree of similarity between the tests is assessed by evaluating the alignment between the
content measured in each test and by measuring their empirical relationship (Dorans, 2004) through the
correlation between the tests. Although linking diers from equating in the interpretations it allows, the
same statistical methods can be used for both. is study uses equipercentile linking with a single-group
design. is method places the scores from two tests on a common scale such that linked scores have the
same relative standing or percentile rank in a group of students.
is report begins with an overview of CLT and SAT, and evaluates the alignment of the content
coverage between the two tests. en, we discuss the data and the methodologies used to establish
the concordance relationships both for the overall test and their sections. Next, we present the results,
which include the correlations between test scores as empirical evidence for their alignment, the
concordance tables, and estimates of the linking error. Finally, we summarize the ndings and discuss the
generalizability of the concordance relationships.
6
CLT SAT ACT
120 1600
36
119 1600
36
118 1590
36
117 1580
36
116 1580
36
115 1570
36
114 1560
35
113 1550
35
112 1540
35
111 1530
35
110 1520
34
109 1500
34
108 1490
34
107 1480
33
106 1470
33
105 1460
33
104 1440
32
103 1430
32
102 1420
32
101 1410
31
100 1390
31
CLT SAT ACT
99 1380
30
98 1370
30
97 1360
30
96 1340
29
95 1330
29
94 1320
28
93 1310
28
92 1300
28
91 1290
27
90 1270
27
89 1260
27
88 1250
26
87 1240
26
86 1230
26
85 1220
25
84 1210
25
83 1200
25
82 1190
24
81 1180
24
80 1170
24
79 1160
24
CLT SAT ACT
78 1150
23
77 1140
23
76 1140
23
75 1130
23
74 1120
22
73 1110
22
72 1100
22
71 1090
21
70 1080
21
69 1080
21
68 1070
21
67 1060
21
66 1050
20
65 1040
20
64 1040
20
63 1030
20
62 1020
19
61 1010
19
60 1000
19
59 1000
19
58 990
19
Total Scores
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
7
CLT SAT ACT
57 980
18
56 970
18
55 960
18
54 950
17
53 940
17
52 940
17
51 930
17
50 920
17
49 910
16
48 900
16
47 890
16
46 880
16
45 870
15
44 860
15
43 850
15
42 840
15
41 840
15
40 830
15
39 820
14
38 810
14
37 800
14
CLT SAT ACT
36 790
14
35 780
14
34 770
13
33 760
13
32 750
13
31 740
13
30 740
13
29 730
13
28 720
12
27 710
12
26 700
12
25 690
12
24 690
12
23 680
11
22 670
11
21 660
11
20 660
11
19 650
11
18 640
10
17 630
10
16 630
10
CLT SAT ACT
15 620
10
14 610
9
13 610
9
12 600
9
11 590
9
10 590
9
9 580
#N/A
8 570
#N/A
7 570
#N/A
6 560
#N/A
5 550
#N/A
4 550
#N/A
3 540
#N/A
2 530
#N/A
1 520
#N/A
0 510
#N/A
8
CLT SAT ACT
63 660
58
62 650
57
61 640
55
60 640
55
59 630
54
58 620
52
57 620
52
56 610
51
55 600
49
54 600
49
53 590
48
52 580
46
51 580
46
50 570
45
49 560
44
48 560
44
47 550
43
CLT SAT ACT
46 540
42
45 540
42
44 530
40
43 520
39
42 520
39
41 510
38
40 510
38
39 500
37
38 490
35
37 490
35
36 480
34
35 470
33
34 470
33
33 460
32
32 450
31
31 450
31
30 440
30
Verbal Reasoning + Grammar/Writing Scores
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
CLT SAT ACT
80 800
72
79 790
72
78 780
71
77 770
71
76 760
70
75 750
70
74 740
69
73 730
68
72 730
68
71 720
67
70 710
66
69 700
64
68 690
63
67 690
63
66 680
61
65 670
60
64 670
60
9
CLT SAT ACT
29 440
30
28 430
29
27 420
28
26 420
28
25 410
27
24 400
26
23 400
26
22 390
25
21 380
24
20 380
24
19 370
23
18 360
22
17 360
22
16 350
21
15 340
20
14 340
20
13 330
19
CLT SAT ACT
12 320
18
11 320
18
10 310
17
9 300
16
8 290
15
7 280
14
6 280
14
5 270
#N/A
4 260
#N/A
3 250
#N/A
2 230
#N/A
1 220
#N/A
0 210
#N/A
10
CLT SAT ACT
26 620
26
25 610
26
24 600
25
23 580
24
22 570
24
21 560
23
20 540
22
19 530
21
18 520
20
17 500
18
16 490
18
15 470
17
14 460
17
13 450
16
CLT SAT ACT
12 430
16
11 420
16
10 400
15
9 390
15
8 380
15
7 360
14
6 350
14
5 330
13
4 310
12
3 290
11
2 270
10
1 250
#N/A
0 220
#N/A
Quantitative Reasoning Scores
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
CLT SAT ACT
40 800
36
39 790
35
38 780
35
37 760
34
36 750
33
35 740
33
34 730
32
33 720
32
32 700
30
31 690
30
30 680
29
29 660
28
28 650
27
27 640
27
11
II. Content Alignment Between CLT and SAT
II.I. CLT Content
e CLT aims to provide an assessment that is intellectually richer than other college
entrance exams, with the end goal of promoting a classical curriculum that forms individuals
who are “intellectually curious, think deeply, reason well, and live with integrity” (CLT, 2018, p. 4).
To achieve this aim, CLT uses passages from classical works that have had a lasting inuence on
culture and society. e CLT consists of three main sections: Verbal Reasoning (VR), Grammar/
Writing (GW), and Quantitative Reasoning (QR). ere is also an optional Essay section, which,
like the Essay section of the SAT, is not the focus of this study.
II.I.I. Verbal Reasoning
e Verbal Reasoning section tests a student’s ability to understand and analyze a text
(CLT, 2018). Students are asked to interact with a variety of texts in dierent subject areas and
are tested on their ability to comprehend the text and synthesize its ideas. Students must be
able to understand how dierent phrases and words are used in context, the author’s purpose
in a particular section, how a text is structured, and what could be reasonably inferred based
on the information in the text. e Verbal Reasoning section can be divided into two domains:
Comprehension and Analysis. Comprehension questions include the subdomains “Passage
as a Whole,” “Passage Details,” and “Passage Relationships.” Analysis questions include the
subdomains “Textual Analysis” and “Interpretation of Evidence.” One of the Interpretation of
Evidence questions always refers to a chart accompanying a passage. Finally, two questions per
passage test analogies based on the passage.
Each Verbal Reasoning section consists of four passages: three full passages and one
passage composed of two shorter excerpts presented together. e passages are selected from the
following four elds: Literature, Science, Philosophy/Religion, Historical/Founding Documents
(two shorter, paired excerpts presented together). e passages in the Literature category are
drawn from classic and modern literary prose, and include works by authors whose stories, style,
and ideas have contributed signicantly to Western culture. Examples include Flannery O’Connor,
Oscar Wilde, Charlotte Brontë. e passages in the Science category are from articles, essays, and
other works exploring the natural sciences, and are always accompanied by a chart. e passages
in the Philosophy/Religion category are from classic or contemporary sources, and discuss issues
12
of truth, reasoning, ethics, and more. e paired passages in the Historical/ Founding Documents
category are two brief selections that present perspectives on an important topic. e rst is a
historical document drawn from sources such as Plato, Cicero, and Epicurus. e second is a
passage from a writer or time period essential to U.S. history. Each passage has ten corresponding
questions that measure students’ ability to understand and draw conclusions about the passage’s
main ideas, the author’s tone or attitude, a character’s motives, the meaning of a word or phrase in
context, the structure of a passage, the evidence or support for the answer to a previous question,
and passage-based analogies.
II.I.II. Grammar/Writing
e Grammar/Writing section tests a student’s ability to edit and improve a text.
Specically, students are tested on their ability to correct errors within a text and to improve its
readability and ow. Moreover, the section assesses students’ ability to use punctuation correctly,
to convey a point precisely and concisely, to make appropriate transitions, to choose the correct
part of speech, to match verb tense, and to make other grammatically well-formed choices. e
questions in the Grammar/Writing section can be broken down into two domains: Grammar
and Writing. Grammar questions include the subdomains “Agreement” and “Punctuation and
Sentence Structure.” Writing questions include the subdomains “Structure,” “Style,” and “Word
Choice.” Grammar questions test a student’s ability to correct agreement, punctuation, structure,
and other errors. Writing questions test a student’s ability to improve upon a text’s style, ow, and
word choice.
e passages in the Grammar/Writing section come from the following areas: Philosophy/
Religion, Historical Prole, Science, and Modern/Inuential inkers. e passages in the
Philosophy/Religion category are classic or contemporary sources that touch on issues of truth,
reasoning, ethics, and more. e passages in the Historical Prole category consist of short
biographical pieces on important historical gures, such as Joan of Arc or Shakespeare. e
passages in the Science category are from articles, essays, and other works exploring the natural
sciences. e passages in the Modern Inuential inkers/ Issues category are similar in scope
to the Philosophy/Religion category, but are drawn from more modern sources and may oer
perspectives on issues faced by modern society. Each passage has ten corresponding questions.
Each question requires students to either correct an error or suggest an improvement in the
passage. If no change is necessary, students can select the option “NO CHANGE.” Questions may
13
test students’ ability to understand, correct, or improve on the following aspects of a text: diction
(word choice), punctuation, syntax (sentence structure), ow, logical coherence, subject/verb
agreement, rhetorical strength of additional/subtracted sentences, and pronoun/antecedent
agreement.
II.I.III. Quantitative Reasoning
e Quantitative Reasoning section tests students’ ability to think logically, use and
manipulate symbols, and understand shapes. Students are asked to complete a variety of
questions to assess their logic and reasoning ability across dierent domains. e Quantitative
Reasoning section can be broken down into three domains: Algebra, Geometry, and Mathematical
Reasoning. Algebra questions include the subdomains “Arithmetic and Operations” and “Algebraic
Expressions and Equations.” Geometry questions include the subdomains “Coordinate Geometry,”
“Properties of Shapes,” and “Trigonometry”. Mathematical Reasoning questions include the
subdomains “Logic” and “Word Problems”. Geometry questions constitute about a third of the
section, which is more than the proportion allotted to Geometry in the SAT and is one of the
dierences between the Quantitative Reasoning section of the CLT and the Math section of the
SAT. Another dierence is the presence of Logic questions and Word Problems, which are absent
in the SAT Math Test. Furthermore, CLT does not allow calculators in any part of the test. All
questions are designed to be solvable without a calculator to reect CLT’s goal of testing students’
logical reasoning abilities rather than their ability to do complicated calculations.
II.I.IV. CLT Scoring
Each section of the CLT consists of 40 multiple-choice questions with the scores on a 0–40
scale (CLT, 2018). e section scores are summed to obtain a total CLT score on the 0–120 scale.
CLT is one hour shorter than the SAT in test administration, taking two hours to complete. Similar
to the SAT, CLT does not impose a penalty for incorrect answers.
II.II. SAT Content
e main goal of the SAT is to assess the extent to which students are prepared to succeed
at college and work (College Board, 2017). Accordingly, SAT scores are often used in college
admissions and scholarship applications. e SAT consists of two sections: Evidence-Based
14
Reading and Writing (EBRW) and Math. e Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section is
composed of two tests: a Reading Test and a Writing and Language Test. e contents of the
Reading Test, the Writing and Language Test, and the Math Test are described below.
II.II.I. SAT Reading Test
e SAT Reading Test has 52 questions and takes 65 minutes. It measures the degree
to which a student “can demonstrate college and career readiness prociency in reading
and comprehending a broad range of high-quality, appropriately challenging literary and
informational texts in the content areas of U.S. and world literature, history/social studies, and
science” (College Board, 2014, p. 40, as cited in College Board, 2017). e Reading Test has four key
features: Words in Context, Command of Evidence, Informational Graphics, and Text Complexity
(College Board, 2017). Words in Context means that the test measures students’ understanding of
a word’s meaning in the context of a passage. Command of Evidence refers to assessing a student’s
ability to extract information and ideas from a text and to identify which parts of the text support a
given conclusion. Informational Graphics requires test takers to interpret graphs, tables, or other
graphics that display information about the content of a passage and to integrate this information
with the information presented in the passage. Text Complexity refers to the fact that the passages
used in the SAT cover multiple levels of complexity, ranging from grades 6-8 to college-entry level.
Importantly, students can answer the questions in the Reading Test based on what is
stated in the passages, without any prior knowledge of the subjects. at is, test takers need
to be thoughtful and reason judiciously to draw conclusions that are supported by a passage.
Occasionally, two passages are paired to assess whether students can make connections between
them in addition to comprehending them individually. e passages used in the SAT reading tests
come from the areas of literature, history/social studies, and science. Literature passages include
classic and contemporary texts by authors from both the US and other countries. History/social
studies passages include excerpts from the US founding documents and texts that are central to
the “Great Global Conversation” (College Board, 2017, p. 8), touching a wide variety of subjects
such as economics, political science, and anthropology. Science passages explore both key
concepts and recent ndings in the natural sciences.
15
II.II.II. SAT Writing and Language Test
e SAT Writing and Language Test has 44 questions and takes 35 minutes. It measures the
degree to which a student “can demonstrate college and career readiness prociency in revising
and editing a range of texts in a variety of content areas, both academic and career related, for
expression of ideas and for conformity to the conventions of standard written English grammar,
usage, and punctuation” (College Board, 2014, p. 58, as cited in College Board, 2017). e key
features of the Writing and Language Test are the same as the rst three key features of the Reading
Test. However, their applications are slightly dierent. For example, Command of Evidence refers
to students’ ability to revise a text to strengthen the development of an idea.
e passages in the Writing and Language Test are developed specically for the test,
and include the content areas of history/social studies, humanities, science, and career-related
subjects. e purpose of developing passages specically for the test is to introduce errors in
the text which students are asked to correct. Specically, students are asked to improve the
passage’s development and organization of ideas as well as to correct mistakes in grammar, usage,
and punctuation. As in the Reading Test, some passages in the Writing and Language Test are
associated with graphics. For the questions associated with these passages, students are required
to make connections between the graphics and the text, correcting the representation and/or the
interpretation of the data in the passage. Importantly, the Writing and Language Test does not
assess mechanical application of grammatical rules, but rather the students’ ability to revise a text
in recognition of its context.
II.II.III. SAT Math Test
e SAT Writing and Language Test has 58 questions and takes 80 minutes. It assesses
the degree to which a student has “uency with, understanding of, and the ability to apply the
mathematical concepts, skills, and practices that are most strongly prerequisite and central to their
ability to progress through a range of college courses, career training, and career opportunities”
(College Board, 2014, p. 132, as cited in College Board, 2017). e goal of the Math Test is to
assess students’ ability to solve problems using the appropriate tools while emphasizing a deep
understanding of a few subjects over a supercial understanding of many subjects. Consistent
with the tests in the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section, the SAT Math Test focuses on
skills that are most likely to contribute to success at college and work. Specically, the Math Test
16
focuses on four areas: Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, Passport to Advanced
Math, and Additional Topics in Math.
Heart of Algebra measures students’ ability to analyze and solve linear equations and
inequalities. Moreover, students are required to solve systems of equations utilizing multiple
techniques. While some of the questions in Heart of Algebra are simple exercises that assess a
student’s uency in solving equations, others require a deeper understanding of the subject such
as understanding the relationship between algebraic and graphical representations. Problem
Solving and Data Analysis assesses a student’s understanding of rates, ratios, and proportions.
Moreover, students are required to understand and apply basic statistical concepts such as
measures of central tendency and spread, the eect of outliers on measures of central tendency,
and to identify patterns in a data set. e questions in Problem Solving and Data Analysis ask
students to apply these concepts to scientic and career-related problems. Passport to Advanced
Math assesses a student’s ability to work with more advanced expressions and equations,
including quadratic and higher order functions. Students are required to understand dierent
parts of expressions such as terms, factors, and coecients. Moreover, students are asked to
rewrite expressions in dierent ways as well as interpret and build functions. Finally, Additional
Topics in Math assesses fundamental concepts in geometry and trigonometry, such as the
Pythagorean theorem. However, these topics constitute only a small portion of the Math Test.
e Math Test has a “calculator portion” in which students can use calculators, and a “no
calculator portion” in which they cannot. e no calculator part includes conceptual questions for
which a calculator is not useful. e calculator part includes more complex modeling problems.
However, the calculator part also has some questions which may be more easily solved by
reasoning instead of relying on a calculator. e purpose of such questions is to assess a student’s
ability to use the right tools to solve a problem.
II.II.IV. SAT Scoring
e Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section consists of multiple-choice questions
(College Board, 2017). e Math test is mostly multiple-choice as well, but contains some student-
produced “grid-in” questions. e Evidence-Based Reading and Writing and Math sections are
both scored on a 200-800 scale, and their scores are summed to obtain a total SAT score between
400 and 1600. Students are given a total of three hours to complete the Evidence-Based Reading
17
and Writing and Math sections. e SAT is scored only based on correct answers, meaning there
are no deductions or penalties for incorrect answers.
II.III. Comparing the CLT and the SAT
Table 1 summarizes the content coverage of the CLT and the SAT. e above review of
the two tests suggests that both tests measure similar constructs. First, both tests are divided into
three subtests that measure reading, writing/grammar, and mathematics. e dierence is that
the CLT reports scores for each of these tests, whereas the SAT reports a combined Evidence Based
Reading and Writing score that includes both the Reading Test and the Writing and Language Test.
Second, the Reading Test of the SAT and the Verbal Reasoning section of the CLT measure
the same abilities: the ability to extract information and derive ideas from a text, determine what
conclusions are supported by it, understand the meaning and use of words and phrases in a
context, understand the purpose of an author, interpret information presented in graphics and
integrate it with an associated passage, and relate multiple passages to each other. Both tests
measure these abilities by presenting passages in pairs and associating passages with graphics.
Moreover, the Verbal Reasoning section and the Reading Test contain passages from similar elds;
both include passages from literature, history, US founding documents, and the natural sciences.
ird, both the Grammar/Writing section of the CLT and the Writing and Language Test of
the SAT require students to improve the development of an idea as well as to correct grammatical
errors. Finally, both the Quantitative Reasoning section of the CLT and the Math Test of the
SAT emphasize problem solving, reasoning, and Algebra. CLT goes a step further in measuring
reasoning abilities by including questions that directly test Logic. Moreover, a greater proportion
of CLT’s Quantitative Reasoning consists of Geometry and Trigonometry questions compared to
the Math Test of the SAT.
e main dierence between the CLT and the SAT seems to focus on the goals they pursue
and the types of passages selected to achieve their goals; SAT places more emphasis on testing
skills that are useful at college and work environments, whereas CLT focuses on exposing students
to classical texts with the aim of nurturing virtue and reason. To achieve this goal, CLT gives a
18
larger place to classical texts in its passages. However, the ability to understand and analyze these
texts is clearly useful in college and work environments as well. Consequently, the CLT and the
SAT converge in the abilities they measure, albeit using slightly dierent means. e convergence
between the CLT and the SAT is evaluated empirically below.
CLT SAT
Total (120 items) Total (154 items)
Verbal Reasoning (40 items) Grammar/
Writing (40 items)
Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (96
items)
Quantitative Reasoning (40 items) Math (58 items)
CLT - Verbal Reasoning SAT - Reading Test
Total (40 items) Total (52 items)
Time allotted: 40 minutes Time allotted: 65 minutes
Multiple choice Multiple choice
Comprehension (67.5%l)
Passage Details (27.5%)
Passage as a Whole (20%)
Passage Relationships (20%)
Words in Context (also overlaps with
Writing and Language test)
Analysis (32.5%)
Textual Analysis (20%)
Interpretation of Evidence (12.5%)
Command of Evidence (also overlaps with
Writing and Language test)
Table 1. Content Coverage of CLT and SAT
19
CLT - Grammar/Writing SAT - Writing and Language
Total (40 items) Total (44 items)
Time allotted: 35 minutes Time allotted: 35 minutes
Grammar (50%)
Agreement (25%)
Punctuation and Sentence Structure (25%)
Standard English conventions (45%)
Writing (50%)
Structure (20%)
Style (20%)
Word Choice (10%)
Expression of Ideas (55%)
CLT - Quantitative Reasoning SAT - Math
Total (40 items) Total (58 items)
Total time allotted: 40 minutes Total time allotted: 80 minutes
Multiple Choice (100%)
Multiple Choice (75-79%)
Student-Produced Response (21-25%)
Calculators not permitted Calculators permitted (partially)
Algebra (25%)
Arithmetic and Operations (12.5%)
Algebraic Expressions and Equations
(12.5%)
Heart of Algebra (33%)
Passport to Advanced Math (28%)
Additional Topics in Math (10%)
Problem Solving and Data Analysis
(29%)
Geometry (35%)
Plane Geometry (10%)
Properties of Shapes (15%)
Trigonometry (10%)
Mathematical Reasoning (40%)
Logic (20%)
Word Problems (20%)
20
III. Linking CLT and SAT Scores
is study examines the concordance relationships of the total scores between CLT and
SAT, between the CLT Quantitative Reasoning scores and the SAT Math scores, and between the
sum of CLT’s Verbal Reasoning and Grammar/Writing scores and the SAT Evidence Based Reading
and Writing Scores. Conceptually, the Verbal Reasoning section of the CLT corresponds to the
Reading Test of the SAT, and the Grammar/Writing section of the CLT corresponds to the Writing
and Language Test of the SAT. Given that the SAT reports combined Evidence Based Reading and
Writing scores, the Verbal Reasoning and Grammar/Writing scores of the CLT will be summed
and mapped to Evidence Based Reading and Writing scores. Ultimately, three concordance
tables are developed to map the CLT and SAT total scores, Reading and Writing scores, and math/
quantitative scores respectively.
IV. Methods
IV.I. Data
is study used three sources of data: CLT administrations that took place between 2016
and 2023, CLT and SAT scores reported by CLT partner colleges and secondary schools, and a
special Florida administration on March 29th, 2023. Given that the CLT was designed for 11th and
12th grade students and is used for college admissions, we only included the scores of students
who took the test in grades 11 or 12. Each data source is described in more detail below. Students
who register for a CLT administration have the option of sharing their total SAT and/or ACT scores,
but they are not required to submit ocial score reports. at is, SAT scores obtained from CLT
administrations are self-reported. Moreover, students are not asked their scores on the separate
sections of these tests. erefore, the SAT and ACT scores obtained from past CLT administrations
only contain total scores. However, a number of partner colleges, secondary schools, and test
takers have reported ocial SAT and ACT scores, and these veried scores included SAT EBRW
and SAT Math section scores as well. Specically, 23 schools and 50 students reported ocial
scores. e scores of students who self-reported their SAT could also be included in the ocial
scores provided by colleges. erefore, we removed duplicate records both within each data set
and across data sets. Duplicates were removed with the highest total score retained as one unique
test record for each individual test-taker. at is, we did not superscore but rather selected the
21
scores from the test attempt that had the maximum total score. On the other hand, if we had
duplicate records for a student, and one of the records included EBRW and Math scores whereas
the others did not, we selected the record that had the section scores.
In each data set, we examined the correlation between SAT scores and CLT scores both before and
after excluding outliers. is was done for exploratory purposes – when creating the concordance
tables, we did not treat outliers separately in each data set, but once in the nal, combined data
set. e exception was the March 29 administration, which is discussed below. By outliers, we
mean bivariate outliers. ese are data points which may be considered typical in their respective
distributions but are outliers when considered in pairs – data points that would not be expect
to occur together. To identify such cases, we calculated a z-score for each CLT and SAT score,
and excluded individuals who had more than a two standard deviation dierence between their
converted CLT and SAT z-scores. is is because given the content similarity between the two
tests, a two standard deviation performance dierence likely indicates lack of eort in one of the
tests or aberrant responding behaviors.
IV.I.I. CLT Administrations between 2016–2023
Between 2016 and 2023, CLT reported 32,615 scores to 24,362 unique students. 21,109
of these students took the test in grades 11 or 12. Of these, 2,677 reported a valid SAT total score.
A valid SAT score was dened as an SAT score that was between 400 and 1600, and that was a
multiple of ten. In addition, we had 50 ocial SAT total and section scores reported by these
students. e sample of 2,677 and 50 individuals were deduplicated after being combined to make
sure the same individual was not included in the analyses multiple times. e nal sample size
for this group was 2,693. It should be noted that in this sample, only the 50 students who reported
ocial scores had section scores for the SAT.
102 of the students in this sample also had records in the ocial data reported by colleges. 75 out
of 102 (74%) had the same SAT score in both data sets and 80 out of 102 (78%) had the same CLT
score, suggesting that some students took both tests multiple times and reported dierent scores
at dierent points. For 22 out of the 27 students, the dierence between the two SAT scores was 50
points or less. Overall, the consistency between self-reported scores and veried scores was high.
Before excluding outliers, the correlation between the CLT and the SAT was 0.79 for total scores,
0.82 for CLT VR + GW and SAT EBRW, and 0.73 for CLT QR and SAT Math. After excluding the
22
outliers, the correlation was 0.86 for the total scores and did not change for the section scores.
After excluding the outliers, the sample size became 2,657, meaning 36 students were identied
as outliers. Table 3 shows the average CLT and SAT scores of this sample. e scores of the
general CLT population are described in Table 2. e standard deviation of all CLT scores is 17.2.
is means the concordance sample obtained from the past administrations is 0.4 standard
deviations above the general mean.
Table 3. CLT and SAT Score Distributions for the 2016-2023 Sample
Section Min 1st Quartile Median Mean 3rd Quartile Max
CLT Total 6.0 72.0 85.0 82.5 95.0 120.0
CLT VR + GW 2.0 52.0 61.0 59.1 68.0 80.0
CLT QR 1.0 18.0 23.0 23.4 28.0 40.0
SAT Total 400.0 1100.0 1220.0 1211.0 1340.0 1600.0
SAT EBRW 480.0 630.0 695.0 683.8 755.0 790.0
SAT Math 430.0 562.5 625.0 629.8 707.5 800.0
Table 2. CLT Score Distributions for the General CLT Population
Section Min 1st Quartile Median Mean 3rd Quartile Max
CLT Total 0 64.0 77.0 75.7 88.0 120.0
CLT VR + GW 0 47.0 57.0 55.1 64.0 80.0
CLT QR 0 16.0 20.0 20.6 25.0 40.0
23
IV.I.II. Data Reported by Partner Colleges and Secondary Schools
is sample included total scores shared by 23 colleges. 18 of the colleges also shared
section scores. Specically, the initial sample from this data set contained 1,648 SAT total scores
and 1,507 SAT section scores. After deduplicating the records and excluding invalid scores, the
sample of veried SAT scores included 1,403 total scores and 1,161 section scores. 1,038 of the
1,161 students with SAT section scores also had CLT section scores. CLT section scores were
identied for an additional 46 students after being merged with the 2016-2023 sample. e scores
reported by colleges and secondary schools are described in Table 4. e table shows that this
sample has higher ability than both the general population and the 2016-2023 sample. Without
excluding outliers, the correlation between CLT and SAT was 0.86 for total scores, 0.83 for CLT VR
+ GW and SAT EBRW scores, and 0.81 for CLT QR and SAT Math scores.
Section Min 1st Quartile Median Mean 3rd Quartile Max
CLT Total 28.0 81.0 91.0 89.0 100.0 120.0
CLT VR + GW 18.0 57.0 65.0 62.3 70.0 80.0
CLT QR 9.0 21.0 27.0 26.1 31.0 40.0
SAT Total 650.0 1160.0 1280.0 1269.0 1390.0 1600.0
SAT EBRW 380.0 600.0 670.0 654.7 720.0 800.0
SAT Math 250.0 550.0 620.0 617.8 680.0 1180.0
Table 4. CLT and SAT Scores Reported by Partner Colleges and Secondary Schools
IV.I.III. CLT Administration on March 29, 2023
e March 29, 2023 administration was a special in-school administration that took place
in Florida. e purpose of this administration was to collect additional data for this concordance
study. Schools were compensated to participate in the research study. 542 students participated
in the administration and 446 provided veried SAT scores. As Table 5 shows, this sample was
lower in ability than the general CLT population. However, the correlation between CLT and SAT
remained high. Before excluding outliers, the correlation between the total scores was 0.74. After
excluding outliers, it was 0.81. In total, 11 points were excluded as outliers, and the nal sample
size for this group was 435. All of these students had section scores.
24
We excluded outliers from this data set prior to combining all the data because we had
concerns about the motivation of the students who participated in this administration. Since
this administration took place to collect data for this study and the schools were incentivized to
participate, the students might not have been as motivated as they would be in an administration
they participated on their own accord. To test our hypothesis about student motivation in
taking the test, we evaluated their CLT scores in the context of their SAT scores, which allowed
us to identify the students who scored much lower on one test while much higher on the other
test. Given that all three datasets showed high correlations between CLT and SAT scores, it was
unlikely for a student to perform drastically dierently on the two tests. Furthermore, to account
for population dierences, we examined the joint distribution of scores in the same sample.
erefore, we calculated z-scores from the same sample of scores, and excluded students who
likely did not put in the necessary eort, as indicated by more than a 2 standard deviation
dierence between their SAT and CLT z-scores.
IV.I.IV. Final Sample for the Concordance Study
To establish the concordance relationship, we combined the three sources of data. is
resulted in 4531 total scores and 1646 section scores. However, it was possible that the scores
shared by colleges and the scores from the 2016-2023 administrations overlapped. erefore, we
checked the duplicate records in this combined data set one more time. e nal sample included
4,404 total scores, 1,551 VR + GW – EBRW, and 1551 QR – Math scores. In this nal sample, before
excluding the outliers, the correlation between the CLT and the SAT was 0.86 for total scores, 0.90
Section Min 1st Quartile Median Mean 3rd Quartile Max
CLT Total 12.0 34.0 44.0 47.0 57.0 110.0
CLT VR + GW 6.0 24.0 34.0 34.8 44.0 76.0
CLT QR 0.0 9.0 11.0 12.3 14.5 39.0
SAT Total 540.0 805.0 910.0 931.5 1040.0 1530.0
SAT EBRW 250.0 420.0 470.0 482.3 540.0 770.0
SAT Math 260.0 370.0 430.0 449.0 510.0 790.0
Table 5. CLT and SAT Scores From the March 29 Administration
25
for CLT VR + GW and SAT EBRW scores, and 0.87 for CLT QR and SAT Math scores. We excluded
a total of 29 data points from the total scores, reaching a nal sample size of 4,375. Excluding the
outliers increased the correlation between the total scores to 0.89. ere were no outliers for VR +
GW and EBRW. ere was one outlier in QR-Math, but excluding it did not aect the correlation.
e nal sample size for QR was 1550. Tables 6 through 11 summarize the CLT and SAT scores of
the nal sample, after excluding outliers. It is noted that the dierence between the nal sample
and the CLT general population is slightly smaller than before due to the addition of the data from
the March 29, 2023 administration.
IV.II. Statistical Analyses
roughout the study, we have reported Pearson’s correlation coecient r to examine
the degree to which the CLT and the SAT measure similar constructs. In the literature, a Pearson’s
r of above 0.70 is considered a strong correlation (Akoglu, 2018). To conduct the linking, we
used equipercentile linking with a single-group design. We implemented the method using the
equate package (Albano, 2016) in the programming language R (R Core Team, 2022). Loglinear
pre-smoothing was used to smooth the score distributions prior to linking the tests. is method
describes the log of a score point’s density using a polynomial function of the form presented in
equation 1 below:
One advantage of using pre-smoothing over post-smoothing is that the methods described
in the previous paragraph provide a principled way of determining how much smoothing should
be applied (Kolen & Brennan, 2014). Moreover, the two smoothing methods often lead to similar
results (Kolen & Brennan, 2014). To choose an appropriate value for the degree of the polynomial
used in smoothing, we used the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT), the Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC) (Akaike, 1973), and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) (Schwarz, 1978). e LRT
is used in model selection to compare two nested models. e LRT computes the ratio of the
likelihoods of the data under the two models. e LR statistic follows a chi-square distribution.
Using the critical values of the distribution, one can test if the more complicated model describes
the data better than the simpler model at a given level of signicance. Given that we conducted
multiple LRTs to test the increasing degrees of polynomials, we adjusted the signicance level
log(p) = β
0
+ β
1
x
1
+ β
2
x
2
+ ...β
c
x
c
26
using the formula in Kolen and Brennan (2014, p. 71) to control the Type I error rate. AIC and BIC
also select the model under which the data are most likely while penalizing additional parameters,
thereby balancing explanatory power with parsimony. Lower AIC and BIC values indicate better
t. We provide standard errors at each score point to quantify the uncertainty in the linking
relationship at each score point.
V. Results
V.I. Correlations Between the CLT and the SAT
e correlation between the CLT and SAT has been discussed while describing the data
collection and cleaning process. In this section, we present the results from the nal sample, along
with visualizations of the relationship. Figure 1 presents the correlation between the total CLT and
SAT scores without the exclusion of outliers from the nal data set. e correlation is 0.86. Figure
2 presents the same relationship after excluding outliers. e data points that suggest an extreme
discrepancy between CLT performance and SAT performance were removed. For example, one
record has a CLT total score of 31 and an SAT total score of 1600. is combination is extremely
unlikely, and clearly suggests that either the student did not put in any eort into the CLT, or that
the SAT score is inaccurate. After excluding the outliers, the correlation increases to 0.89, which
is very high. Further, Figure 3 displays the relationship between the sum of the CLT VR and GW
scores and SAT EBRW scores. e correlation is 0.90 and there are no outliers. Finally, Figure 4
shows the correlation between CLT QR scores and SAT Math scores. e correlation is 0.87 and
does not change after removing the single outlier.
27
CLT and SAT Total Scores
Figure 1. e relationship between CLT and SAT total scores, without the exclusion of outliers.
Figure 2. e relationship between CLT and SAT total scores after excluding outliers.
28
CLT VR + GW and SAT EBRW Scores
Figure 3. e relationship between CLT VR + GW scores and SAT EBRW scores. ere are no
outliers.
CLT QR and SAT Math Scores
Figure 4. e relationship between CLT QR scores and SAT Math scores. ere was only one
outlier.
29
V.II. Pre-Smoothing
CLT and SAT Total Scores
e LRT, AIC, and BIC all suggested that a polynomial degree of 4 described the distribution of CLT
scores the best (AIC = 653.72, BIC = 667.70, p < 0.001). Degree 6 was selected for the SAT total score
distribution (AIC = 670.81, BIC = 690.38, p = 0.002). Table 6 and Table 7 compare the empirical and the
smoothed distributions for the CLT total scores and the SAT total scores, respectively. Since we used
degree 4 for the CLT and 6 for the SAT, all the moments of the smoothed distributions match those of
the empirical distributions..
CLT VR + GW and SAT EBRW Scores
Degree 2 was selected to smooth both the CLT VR + GW scores (AIC=640.63, BIC=647.81,p<0.001) and
the SAT EBRW scores (AIC = 404.49, BIC = 410.82, p < 0.001). Table 8 and Table 9 compare the empirical
and the smoothed distributions for CLT total scores and SAT total scores, respectively. e smoothed
distributions match the empirical distributions at the rst and second moments, but slightly dier
in the third and the fourth moments. is is expected given that a degree 2 polynomial was used to
smooth the VR + GW and EBRW distributions.
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 81.1 20.0 -0.7 3.0 12.0 120.0
4375
Smoothed 81.1 20.0 -0.7 3.0 0.0 120.0
4375
Table 6. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of total CLT scores
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 1201.4 193.5 -0.4 2.7 540.0 1600.0
4375
Smoothed 1201.4 193.5 -0.4 2.7 400.0 1600.0
4375
Table 7. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of total SAT scores
30
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 570.1 121.3 -0.2 2.3 250.0 800.0
1550
Smoothed 570.1 121.3 -0.3 2.6 200.0 800.0
1550
Table 11. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of total CLT scores
CLT QR and SAT Math Scores
Degree 2 was selected to smooth both the CLT QR scores (AIC = 408.00, BIC = 413.14, p < 0.001)
and the SAT Math scores (AIC = 461.02, BIC = 467.35, p < 0.001). Table 10 and Table 11 compare the
empirical and the smoothed distributions for CLT total scores and SAT total scores, respectively.
e smoothed distributions match the empirical distributions at the rst and second moments,
but slightly dier in the third and the fourth moments. is is expected given that a degree 2
polynomial was used to smooth the QR and Math distributions.
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 54.7 17.0 -0.7 2.4 6.0 80.0
1551
Smoothed 54.7 17.0 -0.6 2.8 0.0 80.0
1551
Table 8. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of CLT VR + GW scores
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 22.2 8.9 -0.1 2.0 0.0 40.0
1550
Smoothed 22.2 8.9 -0.2 2.4 0.0 40.0
1550
Table 10. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of total CLT scores
Distribution Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Min Max N.
Empirical 606.3 117.0 -0.4 2.3 250.0 800.0
1551
Smoothed 606.3 117.0 -0.5 2.8 200.0 800.0
1551
Table 9. Comparison of the empirical and smoothed distributions of SAT EBRW scores
31
V.III. Concordance Tables
Appendix A provides the CLT-SAT concordance table established in this study along with the ocial
SAT-ACT concordance relationship established by the College Board and the ACT (ACT & College
Board, 2018). Appendix B provides the CLT-SAT concordance table with the standard errors.
VI. Summary and Discussions
e purpose of this study was to establish a concordance relationship between the CLT and
the SAT. To justify linking the two tests, we showed that they cover similar content that measures
similar skills, and computed the correlation between both the total scores and each section score.
Noting that correlations above 0.70 are considered strong (Akoglu, 2018), we showed that the
correlation between the CLT total score and the SAT total score was 0.89, the correlation between the
CLT VR + GW scores and SAT EBRW scores was 0.90, and the correlation between the CLT QR scores
and SAT Math scores was 0.87. All of these are very strong correlations and show that the CLT and
SAT measure very similar constructs. erefore, it is concluded that linking the two tests is sensible.
58% of the total SAT scores used in this study were self-reported. e remaining 42% were
veried scores collected from partner colleges, secondary schools, and students. 100% of the section
scores were veried. An analysis of the students who had both self-reported scores and veried
scores showed that there was high delity between the self-reported scores and the veried scores.
Moreover, the correlations between CLT and SAT was high in the self-reported sample, especially
after excluding bivariate outliers. ese results suggest that the fact that a large proportion of total
SAT scores were self-reported does not pose a threat to the validity of the results.
Like all concordance tables, the one presented in this report is to some extent sample-
dependent (College Board, 2018). Two of the three samples included in this study are higher
performing than the general population of CLT test takers. In contrast, the students in the third
sample – the students who attended the March 29 administration – were lower performing. When
combined, the average CLT score of the nal sample was approximately 5 points higher than the
average of the general population of CLT test takers. However, their average SAT score was also
higher than average (College Board, 2022), indicating that this group of students have higher ability
in general. is makes sense given that many of the students in this sample either applied to or
were accepted into colleges. Also, it is generally the case that students who take more than one
standardized test have higher ability. However, students who are likely to apply to scholarships are
also more likely to have higher ability. In this sense, the group of students included in this study
resemble the group of students who will use the concordance table presented in this report. Still,
users and educators should be aware of these dierences in utilizing the concordance table.
32
References
ACT & College Board. (2018). Guide to the 2018 ACT®/SAT® Concordance.
https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
Akoglu, H. (2018). User's Guide to Correlation Coecients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Akaike, H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Springer Series in
Statistics, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15
Albano, A. D. (2016). equate: An r package for observed-score linking and equating. Journal of Statistical
Software, 74(8). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v074.i08
Classic Learning Test. (2018). 2018 Technical Report. Classic Learning Initiatives.
https://www.cltexam.com/tests/research-reports/
College Board. (2017). SAT Suite of Assessments Technical Manual. College Board.
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/sat-suite-assessments-technical-manual.pdf
College Board. (2022). 2022 Total Group SAT Suite of Assessments Annual Report.
https://reports.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/2022-total-group-sat-suite-of-assessments-annual-report.pdf
Dorans, N. J. (2004). Equating, concordance, and expectation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(4), 227–
246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621604265031
Dorans, N. J. (2020). Uncommon measures revisited. ETS Research Report Series, 2020(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12287
Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. Springer.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Table 145: SAT mean scores of college-bound seniors, by race/
ethnicity: Selected years, 1986-87 through 2008-09. In Digest of Education Statistics 2009 . U.S.
Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_145.asp
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. e Annals of Statistics, 6(2).
https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
33
APPENDIX A:
CLT-SAT-ACT Concordance Tables
34
CLT SAT ACT
120 1600
36
119 1600
36
118 1590
36
117 1580
36
116 1580
36
115 1570
36
114 1560
35
113 1550
35
112 1540
35
111 1530
35
110 1520
34
109 1500
34
108 1490
34
107 1480
33
106 1470
33
105 1460
33
104 1440
32
103 1430
32
102 1420
32
101 1410
31
100 1390
31
CLT SAT ACT
99 1380
30
98 1370
30
97 1360
30
96 1340
29
95 1330
29
94 1320
28
93 1310
28
92 1300
28
91 1290
27
90 1270
27
89 1260
27
88 1250
26
87 1240
26
86 1230
26
85 1220
25
84 1210
25
83 1200
25
82 1190
24
81 1180
24
80 1170
24
79 1160
24
CLT SAT ACT
78 1150
23
77 1140
23
76 1140
23
75 1130
23
74 1120
22
73 1110
22
72 1100
22
71 1090
21
70 1080
21
69 1080
21
68 1070
21
67 1060
21
66 1050
20
65 1040
20
64 1040
20
63 1030
20
62 1020
19
61 1010
19
60 1000
19
59 1000
19
58 990
19
Total Scores
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
35
CLT SAT ACT
57 980
18
56 970
18
55 960
18
54 950
17
53 940
17
52 940
17
51 930
17
50 920
17
49 910
16
48 900
16
47 890
16
46 880
16
45 870
15
44 860
15
43 850
15
42 840
15
41 840
15
40 830
15
39 820
14
38 810
14
37 800
14
CLT SAT ACT
36 790
14
35 780
14
34 770
13
33 760
13
32 750
13
31 740
13
30 740
13
29 730
13
28 720
12
27 710
12
26 700
12
25 690
12
24 690
12
23 680
11
22 670
11
21 660
11
20 660
11
19 650
11
18 640
10
17 630
10
16 630
10
CLT SAT ACT
15 620
10
14 610
9
13 610
9
12 600
9
11 590
9
10 590
9
9 580
#N/A
8 570
#N/A
7 570
#N/A
6 560
#N/A
5 550
#N/A
4 550
#N/A
3 540
#N/A
2 530
#N/A
1 520
#N/A
0 510
#N/A
36
CLT SAT ACT
63 660
58
62 650
57
61 640
55
60 640
55
59 630
54
58 620
52
57 620
52
56 610
51
55 600
49
54 600
49
53 590
48
52 580
46
51 580
46
50 570
45
49 560
44
48 560
44
47 550
43
CLT SAT ACT
46 540
42
45 540
42
44 530
40
43 520
39
42 520
39
41 510
38
40 510
38
39 500
37
38 490
35
37 490
35
36 480
34
35 470
33
34 470
33
33 460
32
32 450
31
31 450
31
30 440
30
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
CLT SAT ACT
80 800
72
79 790
72
78 780
71
77 770
71
76 760
70
75 750
70
74 740
69
73 730
68
72 730
68
71 720
67
70 710
66
69 700
64
68 690
63
67 690
63
66 680
61
65 670
60
64 670
60
Verbal Reasoning + Grammar/Writing Scores
37
CLT SAT ACT
29 440
30
28 430
29
27 420
28
26 420
28
25 410
27
24 400
26
23 400
26
22 390
25
21 380
24
20 380
24
19 370
23
18 360
22
17 360
22
16 350
21
15 340
20
14 340
20
13 330
19
CLT SAT ACT
12 320
18
11 320
18
10 310
17
9 300
16
8 290
15
7 280
14
6 280
14
5 270
#N/A
4 260
#N/A
3 250
#N/A
2 230
#N/A
1 220
#N/A
0 210
#N/A
38
CLT SAT ACT
26 620
26
25 610
26
24 600
25
23 580
24
22 570
24
21 560
23
20 540
22
19 530
21
18 520
20
17 500
18
16 490
18
15 470
17
14 460
17
13 450
16
CLT SAT ACT
12 430
16
11 420
16
10 400
15
9 390
15
8 380
15
7 360
14
6 350
14
5 330
13
4 310
12
3 290
11
2 270
10
1 250
#N/A
0 220
#N/A
Quantitative Reasoning Scores
*e concordance between the CLT and the ACT is derived from the ocial concordance between the SAT and the ACT, which can
be found in this link: https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/act-sat-concordance.html
CLT SAT ACT
40 800
36
39 790
35
38 780
35
37 760
34
36 750
33
35 740
33
34 730
32
33 720
32
32 700
30
31 690
30
30 680
29
29 660
28
28 650
27
27 640
27
39
APPENDIX B:
Concordance Table With Standard Errors (SE)
40
CLT SAT SE
120 1600 0.21
119 1600 0.45
118 1590 0.51
117 1580 0.55
116 1580 0.68
115 1570 0.66
114 1560 0.65
113 1550 0.63
112 1540 0.63
111 1530 0.62
110 1520 0.61
109 1500 0.54
108 1490 0.54
107 1480 0.54
106 1470 0.54
105 1460 0.54
104 1440 0.51
103 1430 0.51
102 1420 0.51
101 1410 0.52
100 1390 0.50
CLT SAT SE
99 1380 0.50
98 1370 0.50
97 1360 0.50
96 1340 0.49
95 1330 0.49
94 1320 0.49
93 1310 0.50
92 1300 0.50
91 1290 0.50
90 1270 0.50
89 1260 0.50
88 1250 0.51
87 1240 0.51
86 1230 0.52
85 1220 0.52
84 1210 0.53
83 1200 0.53
82 1190 0.54
81 1180 0.55
80 1170 0.56
79 1160 0.57
CLT SAT SE
78 1150 0.58
77 1140 0.59
76 1140 0.58
75 1130 0.59
74 1120 0.61
73 1110 0.62
72 1100 0.64
71 1090 0.65
70 1080 0.67
69 1080 0.66
68 1070 0.68
67 1060 0.70
66 1050 0.72
65 1040 0.74
64 1040 0.73
63 1030 0.75
62 1020 0.77
61 1010 0.79
60 1000 0.81
59 1000 0.80
58 990 0.82
Total Scores
41
CLT SAT SE
57 980 0.84
56 970 0.86
55 960 0.88
54 950 0.91
53 940 0.93
52 940 0.90
51 930 0.92
50 920 0.94
49 910 0.95
48 900 0.97
47 890 0.98
46 880 1.00
45 870 1.01
44 860 1.02
43 850 1.03
42 840 1.04
41 840 1.00
40 830 1.00
39 820 1.00
38 810 1.01
CLT SAT SE
37 800 1.01
36 790 1.01
35 780 1.02
34 770 1.03
33 760 1.05
32 750 1.07
31 740 1.09
30 740 1.02
29 730 1.04
28 720 1.07
27 710 1.11
26 700 1.17
25 690 1.26
24 690 1.14
23 680 1.21
22 670 1.32
21 660 1.48
20 660 1.31
19 650 1.46
18 640 1.68
CLT SAT SE
17 630 2.02
16 630 1.72
15 620 2.05
14 610 2.58
13 610 2.18
12 600 2.73
11 590 3.63
10 590 3.02
9 580 4.01
8 570 5.75
7 570 4.63
6 560 6.62
5 550 10.40
4 550 7.94
3 540 12.20
2 530 20.17
1 520 33.68
0 510 44.47
42
CLT SAT SE
53 590 0.59
52 580 0.60
51 580 0.59
50 570 0.60
49 560 0.62
48 560 0.61
47 550 0.63
46 540 0.65
45 540 0.64
44 530 0.65
43 520 0.68
42 520 0.66
41 510 0.69
40 510 0.68
39 500 0.70
38 490 0.73
37 490 0.71
36 480 0.74
35 470 0.78
34 470 0.76
33 460 0.80
32 450 0.85
31 450 0.81
30 440 0.86
29 440 0.84
28 430 0.88
27 420 0.94
CLT SAT SE
26 420 0.91
25 410 0.96
24 400 1.04
23 400 0.99
22 390 1.06
21 380 1.15
20 380 1.09
19 370 1.18
18 360 1.29
17 360 1.21
16 350 1.31
15 340 1.43
14 340 1.35
13 330 1.46
12 320 1.59
11 320 1.50
10 310 1.61
9 300 1.75
8 290 1.91
7 280 2.08
6 280 1.88
5 270 2.00
4 260 2.11
3 250 2.18
2 230 2.66
1 220 2.39
0 210 1.71
CLT SAT SE
80 800 0.18
79 790 0.31
78 780 0.38
77 770 0.42
76 760 0.45
75 750 0.46
74 740 0.48
73 730 0.49
72 730 0.52
71 720 0.52
70 710 0.52
69 700 0.52
68 690 0.53
67 690 0.54
66 680 0.54
65 670 0.54
64 670 0.55
63 660 0.55
62 650 0.55
61 640 0.55
60 640 0.56
59 630 0.56
58 620 0.57
57 620 0.57
56 610 0.57
55 600 0.58
54 600 0.58
Verbal Reasoning + Grammar/Writing Scores
43
CLT SAT SE
26 620
0.57
25 610
0.58
24 600
0.58
23 580
0.58
22 570
0.58
21 560
0.59
20 540
0.60
19 530
0.60
18 520
0.61
17 500
0.64
16 490
0.64
15 470
0.69
14 460
0.69
13 450
0.70
CLT SAT SE
12 430
0.76
11 420
0.77
10 400
0.86
9 390
0.86
8 380
0.88
7 360
0.98
6 350
0.99
5 330
1.12
4 310
1.27
3 290
1.45
2 270
1.60
1 250
1.65
0 220
1.58
Quantitative Reasoning Scores
CLT SAT SE
40 800
0.25
39 790
0.43
38 780
0.52
37 760
0.53
36 750
0.56
35 740
0.59
34 730
0.61
33 720
0.62
32 700
0.59
31 690
0.59
30 680
0.60
29 660
0.58
28 650
0.58
27 640
0.58
Classic Learning Test exists to
reconnect knowledge and virtue by
providing meaningful assessments
and connections to seekers of truth,
goodness, and beauty.
For questions and information
about upcoming test dates, college
and university partnerships, or
registration, please contact us at
[email protected]
For other inquiries, please call us at:
(844) 925-8392
73 Franklin Street73 Franklin Street
annapoliS, MD 21401annapoliS, MD 21401
CLTEXAM.COMCLTEXAM.COM
(844) 925-8392(844) 925-8392