2013 ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide for Unproctored Administrations

Transcription

1 2013 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, 2008 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 the individual student level statistics has been modified, to prevent the statistics from being dominated by a few very large institutions. If an institution contributed more than 3800 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 3800/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 7600 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 3800/7600 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 3800 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 7600 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 3800 student 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 2014 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS).

2 Four-year Institution Types across All Grades Institution List Data includes students from domestic institutions who tested between July 2008 through June ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY, GA AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY - ONLINE, IL AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, WV AMERICAN SENTINEL UNIVERSITY, CO AQUINAS COLLEGE - MI, MI ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, IA ATHENS STATE UNIVERSITY, AL BAUDER COLLEGE, GA BLOOMSBURG UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PA BRENAU UNIVERSITY, GA CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, MN CHARTER OAK STATE COLLEGE, CT COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS, MO COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY, CO COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY - GLOBAL CAMPUS, CO COLUMBIA COLLEGE - MO, MO COVENANT COLLEGE, GA DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, TX DEVRY UNIVERSITY, IL DONNELLY COLLEGE, KS EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY, PA EASTERN UNIVERSITY, PA ECPI UNIVERSITY, NC ENDICOTT COLLEGE, MA EVERGLADES UNIVERSITY, FL EXCELSIOR COLLEGE, NY FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY, MI FERRUM COLLEGE, VA FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY, FL HARRISON COLLEGE - INDIANAPOLIS, IN HIGH POINT UNIVERSITY, NC HOUGHTON COLLEGE, NY HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, TX INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, IN JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY, AL KAPLAN UNIVERSITY, IL KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PA LANDER UNIVERSITY, SC LEE UNIVERSITY, TN LETOURNEAU UNIVERSITY, TX LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, VA LIMESTONE COLLEGE, SC LOUISIANA COLLEGE, LA MIDLAND UNIVERSITY, NE MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY, MS MISSOURI SOUTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY, MO MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, MO MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, MT MOUNT OLIVE COLLEGE, NC NEUMANN UNIVERSITY, PA NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NJ NEWBERRY COLLEGE, SC NORTH CAROLINA WESLEYAN COLLEGE, NC NORTHEASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY, OK OHIO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, OH OTTAWA UNIVERSITY, KS PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE, VA PATTEN UNIVERSITY, CA PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, SC PROVIDENCE COLLEGE, RI QUEENS UNIVERSITY OF CHARLOTTE, NC QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, CT REGENT UNIVERSITY, VA SAINT LEO UNIVERSITY, FL SAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLLEGE, IN SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY, TX SEATTLE UNIVERSITY, WA SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, SC SOUTH UNIVERSITY - SAVANNAH, GA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, FL SOUTHERN CATHOLIC COLLEGE, GA STERLING COLLEGE, KS STRAYER UNIVERSITY, DC TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY - CORPUS CHRISTI, TX TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY - SAN ANTONIO, TX TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY - TEXARKANA, TX THOMAS EDISON STATE COLLEGE, NJ TOURO COLLEGE - CA, CA TROY UNIVERSITY, AL TUSCULUM COLLEGE, TN UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK, AR UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, OH UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON - DOWNTOWN, TX UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN, IL UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND - UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, MD UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS, TN UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - RENO, NV 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 ST. FRANCIS, IL UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER, TX WALDEN UNIVERSITY, MN WASHBURN UNIVERSITY, KS WAYLAND BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, TX WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, MI WESTERN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, AZ WESTERN TEXAS COLLEGE, TX WORCESTER STATE COLLEGE, MA Total Number of Total Number of Students ,516 Only those institutions testing 30 or more students in a college class were included in the analyses for that college class. ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 2

3 Distribution of Institutional Total Scores All Students, Four-Year July 2008 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 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 3

4 Distribution of Institutional s All Students, Four-Year July 2008 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 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 4

5 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 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 5

6 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 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 6

7 Distribution of Individual Students Total Scores All Students, Four-Year July 2008 through June Number of Students Standard Deviation 106,162* ile Scaled Score 90 th th th th th 415 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 4500 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4500/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 9000 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4500/9000 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4500 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 9000 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4500 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 7

8 Distribution of Individual Students s All Students, Four-Year July 2008 through June Number of Students Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences 106,162* 106,162* 106,162* 106,162* 106,162* 106,162* 106,162* 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 94 >99 > > > < ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 8

9 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 4500 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4500/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 9000 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4500/9000 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4500 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 9000 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4500 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 9

10 Summary of Proficiency Classifications All Students, Four-Year July 2008 through June Total Number of Students Weighted Number of Students 151, ,162* of Students Classified Skill Dimension and Level Classified as Proficient Classified as Marginal Classified as Non-Proficient Critical Thinking 4% 10% 86% Reading, Level 2 25% 16% 59% Reading, Level 1 49% 20% 31% Writing, Level 3 5% 19% 77% Writing, Level 2 15% 28% 57% Writing, Level 1 48% 30% 22% Mathematics, Level 3 4% 10% 85% Mathematics, Level 2 17% 21% 63% 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 4500 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4500/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 9000 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4500/9000 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4500 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 9000 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4500 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 10

11 Demographic Summary All Students, Four-Year in Demographic Category Age Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Under 20 18% 23% 20 to 29 40% 42% 30 to 39 23% 19% 40 to 49 13% 12% 50 to 59 5% 4% 60 or more <1% <1% Gender Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Male 38% 39% Female 62% 61% Ethnicity Unweighted Data Weighted Data* American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander 1% 1% 3% 3% African American 20% 20% Black Hispanic 1% 1% Hispanic 7% 6% Latin American 1% 1% White 62% 63% Other 5% 5% Best Language Unweighted Data Weighted Data* English 83% 83% Other Language 13% 14% Both Equal 3% 3% ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 11

12 Enrollment Status Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Full Time 82% 81% Part Time 18% 19% Credit Hours Transferred Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Not a Transfer 55% 54% 0-15 Hours Transferred 8% 7% Hours Transferred 9% 9% >30 Hours Transferred 29% 30% Hours Worked for Wages Unweighted Data Weighted Data* None 23% 25% 1-15 Hours 16% 18% Hours 16% 17% >30 Hours 46% 40% Cumulative GPA Unweighted Data Weighted Data* % 38% % 36% % 20% % 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 4500 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 4500/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 9000 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 4500/9000 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 4500 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 9000 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 4500 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2013 Comparative Data Guide (Unproctored Administrations) Page 12