Brian F. Patterson

Test of Slope and Intercept Bias in College Admissions: A Response to Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010).

Research on the predictive bias of cognitive tests has generally shown (a) no slope effects and (b) small intercept effects, typically favoring the minority group. Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010) simulated data and demonstrated that statistical artifacts may have led to a lack of power to detect slope differences and an overestimate of the size of the intercept effect. In response to Aguinis et al.s (2010) call for a revival of predictive bias research, we used data on over 475,000 students entering college between 2006 and 2008 to estimate slope and intercept differences in the college admissions context. Corrections for statistical artifacts were applied. Furthermore, plotting of regression lines supplemented traditional analyses of predictive bias to offer additional evidence of the form and extent to which predictive bias exists. Congruent with previous research on bias of cognitive tests, using SAT scores in conjunction with high school grade-point average to predict first-year grade-point average revealed minimal differential prediction (ΔR²intercept ranged from .004 to .032 and ΔR²slope ranged from .001 to .013 depending on the corrections applied and comparison groups examined). We found, on the basis of regression plots, that college grades were consistently overpredicted for Black and Hispanic students and underpredicted for female students.

Contextual Factors Associated with the Validity of SAT Scores and High School GPA for Predicting First-Year College Grades.

Prior research has shown that there is substantial variability in the degree to which the SAT and high school grade point average (HSGPA) predict 1st-year college performance at different institutions. This article demonstrates the usefulness of multilevel modeling as a tool to uncover institutional characteristics that are associated with this variability. The results revealed that the predictive validity of HSGPA decreased as mean total SAT (i.e., sum of the three SAT sections) score at an institution increased and as the proportion of White freshmen increased. The predictive validity of the three SAT sections (critical reading, mathematics, and writing) varied differently as a function of different institution-level variables. These results suggest that the estimates of validity obtained and aggregated from multiple institutions may not accurately reflect the unique contextual factors that influence the predictive validity of HSGPA and SAT scores at a particular institution.

Discrepant SAT Critical Reading and Writing Scores: Implications for College Performance

Despite the similarities that researchers note between the cognitive processes and knowledge involved in reading and writing, there are students who are much stronger readers than writers and those who are much stronger writers than readers. The addition of the writing section to the SAT provides an opportunity to examine whether certain groups of students are more likely to exhibit stronger performance in reading versus writing and the academic consequences of this discrepant performance. Results of this study, based on hierarchical linear models of student performance, showed that even after controlling for relevant student characteristics and prior academic performance, an SAT critical reading–writing discrepancy had a small effect on 1st-year grade point average as well as English course grades in college. Specifically, students who had relatively higher writing scores as compared to their critical reading scores earned higher grades in their 1st year of college as well as in their 1st-year English course(s).