In addition to a review of the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), a number of other aptitude tests are examined. They are: (1) Flanagan Aptitude Classification Tests, (2) Holzinger-Crowder Uni-Factor Tests, (3) Employee Aptitude Survey, (4) Revised Minnesota Paper Form Board Test, (5) Minnesota Clerical Test, and (6) Turse Clerical Aptitudes Test. The results suggest that aptitude tests have been useful instruments in predicting general scholastic aptitudes but have not been as successful in predicting technical aptitudes. Possible reasons for this finding may be that (1) a student's high interest does not necessarily indicate a high aptitude, and (2) the inability to measure every aspect of the achievement process. It is concluded that further research is necessary for aptitudes to be identified and measured more accurately. It is felt that much of a test's usefulness is the adequacy of its manual. With the exception of the DAT manual, most seemed to lack presenting adequate norms, their source, and appropriate validity and reliability data. It is suggested that (1) present multifactor batteries do not adequately differentiate aptitudes, 2) adequate guidance will depend on supplementary information, and (3) student motivation requires more attention and measurement. (JS)