2015 ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide for Proctored Administrations

Transcription

1 2015 ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide for Proctored 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 a proctored 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 900 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 900/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 1800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 900/1800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 900 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 1800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 900 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 Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II Institution List Data includes students from domestic institutions who tested between July 2010 through June Abilene Christian University, TX Alabama A&M University, AL Alabama State University, AL Alcorn State University, MS Armstrong State University, GA Bethel University, TN Cairn University, PA Campbell University, NC Christian Brothers University, TN Citadel, The, SC College of Charleston, SC Concordia University (CA), CA Concordia University Chicago, IL Concordia University Wisconsin, WI Faith Baptist Bible College, IA Florida Gulf Coast University, FL Fort Hays State University, KS Friends University, KS Governors State University, IL Grambling State University, LA Lamar University, TX Lincoln Memorial University, TN Lindenwood University, MO Maharishi University of Management, IA Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MA McNeese State University, LA Missouri State University, MO Neumann University, PA Nicholls State University, LA Norfolk State University, VA North Central Missouri College, MO Northeastern Illinois University, IL Northwest Missouri State University, MO Nyack College, NY Our Lady of Holy Cross College, LA Pfeiffer University, NC Quinnipiac University, CT Saint Mary's University, TX Saint Peter's College, NJ Slippery Rock University of PA, PA South Arkansas Community College, AR Southeast Missouri State University, MO Stephen F. Austin State University, TX Tarleton State University, TX Texas A&M University Kingsville, TX Texas Wesleyan University, TX Touro College, NY Trevecca Nazarene University, TN Troy University - Global, AL Truman State University, MO University of Central Missouri, MO University of Central Oklahoma, OK University of Charleston, WV University of Colorado, CO University of Houston-Clear Lake, TX University of Maryland - Eastern Shore, MD University of South Florida - St. Petersburg, FL University of Southern Indiana, IN University of Tennessee - Chattanooga, TN University of Tennessee at Martin, TN University of the Cumberlands, KY University of Wisconsin - Platteville, WI Western Texas College, TX William Carey University, MS Total Number of Total Number of Students 64 17,367 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 (Proctored Administrations) Page 2

3 Distribution of Institutional Total Scores Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II 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 (Proctored Administrations) Page 3

4 Distribution of Institutional s Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II July 2010 through June Skill Number of Standard Deviation Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences Critical Thinking 123 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Reading 123 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 (Proctored Administrations) Page 4

5 Writing 123 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Mathematics 123 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Humanities 123 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Social Sciences 123 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 (Proctored Administrations) Page 5

6 Natural Sciences 123 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 (Proctored Administrations) Page 6

7 Distribution of Individual Students Total Scores Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II July 2010 through June Number of Students Standard Deviation 11,832* 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 900 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 900/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 1800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 900/1800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 900 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 1800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 900 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 7

8 Distribution of Individual Students s Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II July 2010 through June Number of Students Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences 11,832* 11,832* 11,832* 11,832* 11,832* 11,832* 11,832* 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 99 >99 > >99 98 >99 > >99 96 > > > <1 < ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 8

9 Context-Based s: of Students Each Scaled Score Scaled Score Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences 130 >99 > > > < <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 900 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 900/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 1800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 900/1800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 900 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 1800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 900 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 9

10 Summary of Proficiency Classifications Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II July 2010 through June Total Number of Students Weighted Number of Students 17,367 11,832* of Students Classified Skill Dimension and Level Classified as Proficient Classified as Marginal Classified as Non-Proficient Critical Thinking 3% 14% 83% Reading, Level 2 25% 20% 55% Reading, Level 1 55% 21% 24% Writing, Level 3 5% 19% 76% Writing, Level 2 13% 32% 55% Writing, Level 1 51% 32% 18% Mathematics, Level 3 5% 11% 84% Mathematics, Level 2 20% 22% 58% Mathematics, Level 1 43% 27% 30% *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 900 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 900/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 1800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 900/1800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 900 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 1800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 900 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 10

11 Demographic Summary Sophomore (30-60 semester hours or quarter hours), Master s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I and II July 2010 through June in Demographic Category Age Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Under 20 26% 26% 20 to 29 65% 62% 30 to 39 5% 6% 40 to 49 3% 4% 50 to 59 1% 1% 60 or more <1% <1% Gender Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Male 41% 39% Female 59% 61% Ethnicity Unweighted Data Weighted Data* African American 20% 25% American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Asian American/Pacific Is. 1% 1% 3% 4% Black Hispanic 1% 2% Hispanic 4% 6% Latin American 1% 1% White 65% 58% Other 4% 4% Best Language Unweighted Data Weighted Data* English 84% 84% Other Language 12% 11% Both Equal 3% 4% ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 11

12 Enrollment Status Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Full Time 94% 94% Part Time 6% 6% Credit Hours Transferred Unweighted Data Weighted Data* Not a Transfer 62% 60% 0-15 Hours Transferred 8% 7% Hours Transferred 11% 11% >30 Hours Transferred 20% 21% Hours Worked for Wages Unweighted Data Weighted Data* None 34% 33% 1-15 Hours 27% 25% Hours 25% 25% >30 Hours 15% 17% Cumulative GPA Unweighted Data Weighted Data* % 26% % 34% % 27% % 12% % 2% 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 900 students to this data set, the score of each of its students has been weighted by the fraction 900/n, where n is the number of students from that institution. For example, if an institution tested 1800 students, the score of each of its students would receive a weight of 900/1800 = 1/2. In computing the statistics, each of its students would count only half as much as a student from an institution that tested 900 or fewer students. Therefore, an institution testing 1800 students would influence the statistics just as much as if it had tested only 900 students. ETS Proficiency Profile 2015 Comparative Data Guide (Proctored Administrations) Page 12