2015 ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide for Unproctored Administrations

Transcription

1 2015 ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide for Unproctored Administrations The annual Comparative Data Guide (CDG) contains tables of scaled scores and percentiles for institutional means and individual student scores drawn directly from test takers across the nation. The CDG can assist you in interpreting the scores from the ETS Proficiency Profile by helping you determine how your students' skills compare with the skills of students at similar institutions. The report provides descriptive statistics based on the number of students that have completed an unproctored version of the ETS Proficiency Profile between July 1, 2010 and June 30, Information about an institution gathered through ETS Proficiency Profile administrations cannot be released in any form attributable to or identifiable with an individual institution. The anonymity of each institution s performance is maintained by reporting only the aggregate performance of the selected reference group. are descriptions of the various tables provided in this guide: Institutional s Total Score/ Distributions The distributions in these tables present the number of institutions at each mean score level. These tables provide a way to compare the Total Score and means for your institution with those of other participating institutions. These tables show the mean of means (or the average of the mean scores for those institutions/programs selected) as well as the standard deviations of those means. Individual Students Total Score/ Distributions The distributions in these tables may be used to interpret results by determining what percent of those taking the test at the selected institutions attained scores below that of a particular student. Each table shows scaled score intervals for Total Score and s separately. By looking up the Total Score or and reading across the row to the corresponding number in the column headed, the percent of individuals scoring below any interval can be determined. Summary of Proficiency Classifications This table presents the percentage of students classified as Proficient, Marginal, and Not Proficient for each skill dimension and level. This table provides a way to compare the proficiency levels at your institution with the selected test taker population. Descriptions of the competencies and abilities measured at each Proficiency Level can be found at The following considerations should be kept in mind when interpreting comparative data: This data should be considered comparative rather than normative because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education institutions and programs. The data are drawn entirely from institutions that choose to use the ETS Proficiency Profile. Such a self-selected sample may not be representative of all institutions or programs. The number of students tested and sampling procedures vary from one institution to another. Therefore, it is impossible to verify that the students tested at each institution are representative of all the institution s students in that program. Only those institutions testing 30 or more students in a college class were included in the analyses for that college class. with fewer than 30 test takers at that class level are excluded from these calculations. The score distribution used to compute these statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 4400 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4400/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 8800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4400/8800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4400 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 8800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4400 students. For more information about this report or other ways the ETS Proficiency Profile can help your program, contact an ETS Advisor at highered@ets.org or call The following tables include tests taken as of June 30, Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS).

2 Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types Institution List Data includes students from domestic institutions who tested between July 2010 through June Adventist University of Health Sciences, FL American Intercontinental University, IL American Public University, WV American Sentinel University, CO Aquinas College (MI), MI Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ Armstrong State University, GA Art Institute of Atlanta, The, GA Art Institute of Pittsburgh, The, PA Ashford University, IA Ashland Community and Technical College, KY Athens State University, AL Belhaven University (MS), MS Big Sandy Community & Technical College, KY Bloomsburg University, PA Bowie State University, MD Brenau University, GA Cabarrus College of Health Sciences, NC California University of Pennsylvania, PA Camden County College, NJ Capella University, MN Capital University, OH Central Virginia Community College, VA Charter Oak State College, CT College of Southern Maryland, MD College of the Ozarks, MO Colorado Mesa University, CO Colorado State University- Global Campus, CO Columbia College (MO), MO Community College of the Air Force, AL Covenant College, GA Craven Community College, NC Dallas Baptist University, TX DeVry University, IL East Stroudsburg University, PA Eastern University, PA ECPI University, NC Elms College, MA Endicott College, MA Erskine College, SC Everest College, AZ Everglades University, FL Excelsior College, NY Ferrum College, VA Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, FL Florida State College at Jacksonville, FL Friends University, KS Grand Canyon University, AZ Harrison College - Indianapolis, IN High Point University, NC Houghton College, NY Houston Baptist University, TX Howard Payne University, TX Indiana State University, IN Jacksonville State University, AL John Tyler Community College, VA Kaplan University, IL Keiser University, FL Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, PA Lander University, SC Laredo Community College, TX Lee University, TN LeTourneau University, TX Liberty University, VA Limestone College, SC Luther Rice University, GA Martin Community College, NC Midland University, NE Midway College, KY Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, MO Mississippi State University, MS Missouri Southern State University, MO Missouri State University, MO Montana State University, MT Neumann University, PA New England College of Business & Finance, MA New Jersey Institute of Technology, NJ New Mexico Junior College, NM Newberry College, SC Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College, OK Northeastern State University, OK Northern Arizona University, AZ Oakland City University, IN Ohio Christian University, OH Ottawa University- Phoenix, AZ Pacific Union College, CA Palm Beach Atlantic University, FL Patrick Henry College, VA Patten University, CA Point University, GA Polk State College, FL Presbyterian College, SC Presentation College, SD Providence College, RI Quinnipiac University, CT Rasmussen College, MN Regent University, VA Rio Salado College, AZ Rocky Mountain College, MT Saint Leo University, FL Saint Mary of the Woods University, IN Saint Philips College, TX Sam Houston State University, TX Seattle University, WA Seminole State College of Florida, FL Skagit Valley College, WA South Carolina State University, SC South University, GA Southeastern University, FL St. Petersburg College, FL State Fair Community College, MO Sterling College, KS Strayer University, DC Surry Community College, NC Texas A&M University - San Antonio, TX Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, TX The New School, NY Thomas Edison State College, NJ Touro College, CA Troy University, AL ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 2

3 Tusculum College, TN University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK University of Charleston, WV University of Cincinnati, OH University of Colorado, CO University of Houston-Clear Lake, TX University of Illinois, IL University of Maryland - University College, MD University of Memphis, TN University of Mount Olive, NC University of Nevada, NV University of New Orleans, LA University of North Carolina at Wilmington, NC University of North Florida, FL University of Northern Iowa, IA University of Phoenix, AZ University of South Carolina - Aiken, SC University of South Florida - Tampa, FL University of Southern Mississippi, MS University of Texas at Tyler, TX Valor Christian College, OH Victoria College, TX Victory University, TN Walden University, MN Washburn University, KS Wayland Baptist University, TX Wayne State University, MI West Kentucky Community and Technical College, KY Western International University, AZ Western Oklahoma State College, OK Western Texas College, TX Western Wyoming Community College, WY Wilmington University, DE Wingate University, NC Worcester State College, MA Total Number of Total Number of Students ,846 Only those institutions testing 30 or more students in a college class were included in the analyses for that college class. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 3

4 Distribution of Institutional Total Scores Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June Number of Standard Deviation Total Score 470 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Total Score 446 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 4

5 Distribution of Institutional s Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June Skill Number of Standard Deviation Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences Critical Thinking 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Reading 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 5

6 Writing 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Mathematics 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Humanities 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Social Sciences 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 6

7 Natural Sciences 125 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 7

8 Distribution of Individual Students Total Scores Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June Number of Students Standard Deviation 175,653* ile Scaled Score 90 th th th th th 414 Scaled Score 500 > > > > > > > Scaled Score Scaled Score Scaled Score < *The score distribution used to compute these statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 4400 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4400/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 8800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4400/8800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4400 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 8800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4400 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 8

9 Distribution of Individual Students s Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June Number of Students Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences 175,653* 175,653* 175,653* 175,653* 175,653* 175,653* 175,653* Score Standard Deviation ile Critical Social Natural Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Thinking Sciences Sciences 90 th th th th th Skills s: of Students Each Scaled Score Scaled Score Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics 130 >99 97 >99 > >99 96 >99 > >99 95 >99 > > > < ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 9

10 Context-Based s: of Students Each Scaled Score Scaled Score Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences 130 >99 >99 > >99 > >99 > > < <1 < *The score distribution used to compute these statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 4400 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4400/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 8800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4400/8800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4400 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 8800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4400 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 10

11 Summary of Proficiency Classifications Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June Total Number of Students Weighted Number of Students 222, ,653* of Students Classified Skill Dimension and Level Classified as Proficient Classified as Marginal Classified as Non-Proficient Critical Thinking 4% 9% 88% Reading, Level 2 23% 15% 61% Reading, Level 1 47% 20% 33% Writing, Level 3 4% 18% 78% Writing, Level 2 14% 27% 59% Writing, Level 1 45% 30% 25% Mathematics, Level 3 4% 10% 86% Mathematics, Level 2 17% 21% 62% Mathematics, Level 1 36% 24% 41% *The score distribution used to compute these statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 4400 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4400/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 8800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4400/8800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4400 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 8800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4400 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 11

12 Demographic Summary Across all Grades (All Students), All Institution Types July 2010 through June in Demographic Category Age Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Under 20 22% 24% 20 to 29 43% 44% 30 to 39 20% 18% 40 to 49 11% 10% 50 to 59 4% 4% 60 or more <1% <1% Gender Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Male 39% 38% Female 61% 62% Ethnicity Unweighted Data Weighted Data* African American 16% 16% American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Asian American/Pacific Is. 1% 1% 3% 3% Black Hispanic 1% 1% Hispanic 9% 9% Latin American 1% 1% White 63% 63% Other 5% 5% Best Language Unweighted Data Weighted Data* English 81% 81% Other Language 14% 15% Both Equal 4% 4% ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 12

13 Enrollment Status Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Full Time 81% 82% Part Time 19% 18% Credit Hours Transferred Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Not a Transfer 58% 59% 0-15 Hours Transferred 7% 7% Hours Transferred 8% 8% >30 Hours Transferred 26% 26% Hours Worked for Wages Unweighted Data Weighted Data* None 24% 26% 1-15 Hours 18% 19% Hours 18% 19% >30 Hours 39% 36% Cumulative GPA Unweighted Data Weighted Data* % 39% % 36% % 19% % 6% % 1% Less than 1.00 <1% <1% *The score distribution used to compute these statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 4400 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4400/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 8800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4400/8800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4400 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 8800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4400 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 13