Comparing School Reports and Empirical Estimates of Relative Reliance on Tests Vs Grades in College Admissions

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
P. Sackett, M. S. Sharpe, N. Kuncel
{"title":"Comparing School Reports and Empirical Estimates of Relative Reliance on Tests Vs Grades in College Admissions","authors":"P. Sackett, M. S. Sharpe, N. Kuncel","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2021.1987903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The literature is replete with references to a disproportionate reliance on admission test scores (e.g., the ACT or SAT) in the college admissions process. School-reported reliance on test scores and grades has been used to study this question, generally indicating relatively equal reliance on the two, with a slightly higher endorsement of grades. As an alternative, we develop an empirical index of relative reliance on tests and grades, and compare school-reported estimates with empirical evidence of relative reliance. Using a dataset from 174 U.S. colleges and universities, we examine the degree to which applicants and enrolled students differ on the SAT and on high school GPA in each school, and develop an index of empirical relative reliance on test scores vs. grades. We find that schools tend to select on test scores and high school grades relatively equally, with the empirical reliance index showing slightly more reliance on test scores and school-reported reliance estimates showing slightly more reliance on grades.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"240 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2021.1987903","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The literature is replete with references to a disproportionate reliance on admission test scores (e.g., the ACT or SAT) in the college admissions process. School-reported reliance on test scores and grades has been used to study this question, generally indicating relatively equal reliance on the two, with a slightly higher endorsement of grades. As an alternative, we develop an empirical index of relative reliance on tests and grades, and compare school-reported estimates with empirical evidence of relative reliance. Using a dataset from 174 U.S. colleges and universities, we examine the degree to which applicants and enrolled students differ on the SAT and on high school GPA in each school, and develop an index of empirical relative reliance on test scores vs. grades. We find that schools tend to select on test scores and high school grades relatively equally, with the empirical reliance index showing slightly more reliance on test scores and school-reported reliance estimates showing slightly more reliance on grades.
比较学校报告和经验估计相对依赖考试与成绩在大学录取
在大学录取过程中,文献中充斥着对入学考试分数(例如ACT或SAT)不成比例的依赖。学校报告对考试成绩和成绩的依赖程度被用来研究这个问题,通常表明对两者的依赖程度相对相等,对成绩的认可程度略高。作为替代方案,我们开发了一个相对依赖测试和成绩的经验指数,并将学校报告的估计与相对依赖的经验证据进行比较。使用来自174所美国高校的数据集,我们检查了申请人和在校生在每所学校的SAT和高中GPA上的差异程度,并开发了一个基于测试分数与成绩的经验相对依赖指数。我们发现,学校倾向于相对平等地选择考试成绩和高中成绩,经验依赖指数显示对考试成绩的依赖程度略高,学校报告的依赖估计显示对成绩的依赖程度略高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信