ACCUPLACERRWins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates ACCUPLACERR Conference Las Vegas, 2005
How it Started • MALDEF • Mexican American Legal Defense Fund • “Restricting Enrollment in courses with tests that have not been validated.” • Tests Must be Approved by the Chancellor • Enrollment cannot be restricted on the basis of test scores alone.
The Legal Situation • Tests must be valid on the basis of content and either criterion or consequence. • Tests must demonstrate reasonable reliability • Tests must be free from disproportionate impact • Colleges must evaluate for content and consequence, and for disproportionate impact. • Colleges must set appropriate cut scores. • Colleges must develop a “multiple measures” approach to placement.
ACCUPLACERR History • First Approved in 1993 for 6 Years • 1-Year Extension for all Tests • Submitted Data in Fall, 1998 • Approval Rejected in June, 1999 • Re-approved in January, 2000 for 6 years • Re-approved in January, 2005 until January, 2012
Approval Process • Submit validity analysis from at least 6 California Colleges • Report must show that 75% of faculty and students agree that placement is accurate (consequential model) or that course grades correlate with test scores with Pearson’s R of .35 (criterion model)
Approval Process • Demonstrate reliability • (test/retest model) • Item bias analysis • (DIF, linguistic bias, and Disproportionate Impact) • Specify user support • Manuals, technical help • ADA
Gathering Data • 23 colleges participated • Surveyed faculty and students • Students could be under-prepared, adequately prepared, or over-prepared • More than 16,000 students surveyed • More than 900 faculty participated • Most colleges sent back individual completed surveys • A few input the data to electronic files
Data Preparation • Identify students who had taken a prerequisite course • Group data by discipline and level • Code courses by level • First transferable course = 0 • Code survey results • Move Over-Prepared to next level • Cluster scores in increments of 5
Analysis • Frequency distribution of responses across score clusters • Objective: Determine whether ACCUPLACERR can place students with accuracy above 75% • Appropriate cut score is the point at which “Adequately Prepared” is near apex and “Over-Prepared” has not begun to increase significantly
Findings • ACCUPLACERR Tests Place Students with greater than 82% Accuracy • ACCUPLACERR Passes Tests for Disproportionate Impact • The New Arithmetic and Algebra Items Show No Linguistic Bias • The New Arithmetic and Algebra Items Demonstrate Exceptional Test/Retest Reliability
Approval • Reading Comprehension, Sentence Skills, Arithmetic, Algebra, CLM, 3 LOEP tests Received Full Approval Until 2012
Additional Findings • WritePlacer Plus and WritePlacer ESL showed no Linguistic Bias in Prompts or Instructions. • LOEP Listening Showed Significant Linguistic Bias • Negative ethnic references • Ethnically identifiable names in stereotypical circumstances
Conclusions • ACCUPLACERR Remains an Effective Test for use in California Community Colleges. • WritePlacer Plus and WritePlacer ESL Have Moved a Step Closer to Approval in California • LOEP Listening Needs Work, but Appears to be an Effective Instrument for ESL Placement
ACCUPLACERRWins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates Thank You for Not Throwing Things at the Presenter