(2005) In W. Camara and
Choosing
students: Higher
education admission tools for the 21st century.
(pp. 177-193)
We appear
to have forgotten why tests were created in the first place. While they were
always considered to be useful in evaluating candidates, they were also
considered to be more equitable than using prior grades because of the
variation in quality among preparatory schools. The College Board has long felt
that the SAT was limited in what it measured and should not be relied upon as
the only tool to judge applicants (Angoff,
1971). The College Board gave advice in
1926 as it developed the first SAT that is as relevant today as it was then.
The present state of all efforts of men (sic) to measure or in any way estimate the worth of other men, or to evaluate the results of their nurture, or to reckon their potential possibilities does not warrant any certainty of prediction. This additional test now made available through the instrumentality of the College Entrance Examination Board may resolve a few perplexing problems, but it should be regarded merely as a supplementary record. To place too great emphasis on test scores is as dangerous as the failure properly to evaluate any score or rank in conjunction with other measures and estimates which it supplements. (Brigham,1926, pp 44-45).
In 1993, the verbal and mathematical reasoning sections of the SAT were
lengthened and the multiple-choice Test of Standard Written English was
dropped. The name was changed from Scholastic Aptitude Test to Scholastic
Assessment Tests, while retaining the SAT initials. Currently it is just called
the SAT-I. In 2003, the College Board
announced that an essay would be added and the analogies item type removed as
of 2005. Despite various changes and
versions over the years, the SAT in essence measures what it did in 1926,
verbal and math ability; it is basically still a general intelligence test
(Sedlacek, 2003, 2004).
However, we
have come to the point where the “Big Test” has become the focal point in our
schools (Lemann, 2000). It has become the standard by which we judge ourselves
and others. Many assume that if an individual has high SAT scores, or if a
school has high mean SAT scores, the students must be learning something, and
the school must be good. To cite that common metaphor; the tail is wagging the
dog.
Test
results should be useful to educators, student service workers, and
administrators, by providing the basis to help students learn better and to
analyze their needs. As currently designed, tests do not accomplish these
objectives. Many teachers tend to teach to get the highest test scores for
their students, student service workers may ignore the tests, and too many
administrators are satisfied if the average test scores rise in their school.
We need some things from our tests that currently we are not getting. We need
tests that are fair to all and provide a good assessment of the developmental
and learning needs of students, while being useful in selecting outstanding
applicants. Our current tests don’t do that.
The world
is much different than it was when the SAT and other tests were developed in
the last century. Women, people of color, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, among
others, are participating in higher education in more extensive and varied ways
(Harvey, 2002; Knapp, Kelly, Whitmore, Wu & Gallego, 2002; McTighe Musil,
et al., 1999; Mohr & Sedlacek, 2000). Commonly employed tests have not kept
up with these changes (Sedlacek, 2004).
Additional questions about tests range from their legality (Harvey &
Hurtado, 1994), the validity of their scores (Williams, 1997), methodology in
developing tests (Sedlacek,1986, 1994, 2003, 2004), and restriction of range
problems (
We need a
fresh approach. It is not good enough to feel constrained by the limitations of
our current ways of conceiving of tests. Instead of asking; “How can we make
the SAT and other such tests better?” we need to ask; “What kinds of measures
will meet our needs now and in the future?” The purpose of this chapter is to
present the underlying logic and research supporting a method that yields such
measures. We do not need to ignore our current tests, we need to add some new
measures that expand the potential we can derive from assessment.
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Courier;
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">The
rallying cry of "all for one and one for all" is one that is used
often in developing what is thought of as fair and equitable measures
(Sedlacek,1994). Commonly, the interpretation of how to handle diversity is to
hone and fine-tune tests so they are equally valid for everyone. However, if
different groups have different experiences and different ways of presenting
their attributes and abilities, it is unlikely that one could develop a single
measure, test item etc. that could yield equally valid scores for all. If we
concentrate on results rather than intentions, we could conclude that it is
important to do an equally good job of selection for each group, not that we
need to use the same measures for all to accomplish that goal. Equality of results,
not process is most important.
Therefore, we should seek to retain the variance due
to culture, race, gender, and other aspects of nontraditionality that may exist
across diverse groups in our measures, rather than attempt to eliminate it (Sedlacek,
2003, 2004). Sedlacek (2004) has defined
nontraditional persons as those with cultural experiences different from those
of White middle-class males of European descent; those with less power to
control their lives; and those who experience discrimination in the
While the
term “noncognitive” appears to be precise and “scientific” sounding, it has
been used to describe a wide variety of attributes. Willingham (1985) studied high school honors, high school follow-through,
personal statements, and references, and concluded that they added to
prediction of college success. Other researchers have included student
involvement (Astin, 1993), academic and social integration (Milem & Berger,
1997), study skills (Nisbet, Ruble, & Schurr, 1982), and socio-economic
background, institutional, and environmental variables (Ting & Robinson,
1998) in their conceptions of noncognitive variables related to student
success. Throughout this chapter “success” refers to grades, retention or graduation,
unless otherwise noted.
Noncognitive is used here to refer to variables relating to adjustment,
motivation, and student perceptions, rather than the traditional verbal and
quantitative (often called cognitive) areas typically measured by standardized
tests. Noncognitive variables appear to be in Sternberg’s (1996) experiential
and contextual domains, while standardized tests tend to reflect the
componential domain. While noncognitive
variables are useful for all students, they are particularly critical for
nontraditional students, since standardized tests and prior grades may provide
only a limited view of their potential. Below is a discussion of the eight
variables recommended to be included in admissions assessment systems (see
Exhibit 1).
--------------
Insert
Exhibit 1
--------------
There is evidence that the way students feel about themselves is related
to their adjustment and success in college (Sedlacek, 2003, 2004). A strong self-concept is particularly
important for students of color (Neville, Heppner, & Wang, 1997), students
with disabilities (Patterson, Sedlacek, & Scales, 1988), and women
returning to school (Adelstein, Sedlacek, & Martinez, 1983).
A number of studies have shown that a positive self-concept correlates
with college grades, retention, and graduation, particularly the later two, for
regularly admitted African American students (McNairy, 1996; Milem &
Berger, 1997; Tracey & Sedlacek, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989). O’Callaghan and Bryant (1990) found
self-concept important for the success of Black American students at the U. S.
Air Force Academy.
Fuertes, Sedlacek, and Liu (1994) demonstrated the importance of a strong
self-concept for Asian and Pacific Islander university students. Bennett and Okinaka (1990) found that Asian
Americans often had feelings of social isolation and dissatisfaction on campus.
Chung and Sedlacek (1999) also noted that Asian Americans had lower career and
social self-appraisals than students of other races.
Fuertes and Sedlacek (1995) noted the importance of a Latino self-concept
and Longerbeam Sedlacek, and Alatorre (2004) found that Latinos were more
likely to feel they lacked academic ability than other racial groups. Also,
Latinos have been found to be more likely than other groups to be uncomfortable
on a campus stressing diversity issues (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000;
Helm, Sedlacek, & Prieto,1998).
Boyer and Sedlacek (1988) found self-concept to be predictive of grades and retention for international students, while Sedlacek and Adams-Gaston (1992) found self-concept related to grades for student-athletes. Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) as well as Ancis and Sedlacek (1997) provided evidence that women’s self-concept related to their academic success. White and Sedlacek (1986) found self-concept to be predictive of success for students in special programs.
In summary, a positive self-concept is predictive of success in higher
education for all students. While having a good self-concept is important for
any student, it becomes even more important for those with nontraditional
experiences because of the added complexity of dealing with a system that was
not designed for them.
Realistic self-appraisal is the
ability to assess one’s strengths and weaknesses and allows for
self-development. Realism in
self-appraisal by nontraditional persons does not connote cultural, racial, or
gender deficiency or inferiority.
White students may do well pursuing their own interests (internal
control) in a society designed to meet their needs, while students of color
need to also be aware of the external control on their lives which requires
them to negotiate the racism in the system (Sedlacek, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2004;
Sedlacek & Brooks, 1976). Perrone, Sedlacek, and Alexander (2001) found
that White and Asian American students perceived intrinsic interest in a field
as the major barrier to achieving their career goals, while African Americans,
Latinos, and Native Americans cited personal finances as their major barrier.
Tracey and Sedlacek (1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989) found
realistic self-appraisal to correlate with college grades, retention and
graduation for students of all races, but the relationships were particularly
strong for African Americans. Women who are able to make realistic
self-appraisals have been shown to get higher grades in a university than those
who have difficulty with such assessments (Ancis & Sedlacek, 1997).
In summary, students of color and women of all races who are able to make
realistic assessments of their abilities, despite any obstacles to making those
assessments, do better in school than those less able to make those judgments.
Realistic self-appraisal is also a predictor of success for traditional
students.
Understands
and Deals with Racism
The successful nontraditional student is a realist based on a personal
experience with discrimination; is committed to fighting to improve the
existing system and is able to handle a racist system. Institutional
racism is defined as the negative consequences that accrue to a member of a
given group because of the way a system or subsystem operates in the society
(e.g., college admissions) regardless of any other attributes of the individual
(Sedlacek, 1995, 2003, 2004; Sedlacek and Brooks, 1976). Racism can take many forms and is used here to cover all
types of ‘isms” (e.g., sexism, ageism, athletism). While racism can be
“individual” rather than institutional, the primary concern here is for dealing
with the policies procedures and barriers, intentional or not, that interfere
with the development of people.
For traditional students, the variable takes the form of handling the
system without the addition of racism (Sedlacek,1996, 2003, 2004; Tracey &
Sedlacek, 1984a, 1984b). How one learns to handle the circumstances with which
they are confronted tells us much about their ability and potential.
Steele’s (1997) work on “stereotype threat” supports the importance of the psychological set with which examinees approach a test. If African Americans are told that they do not usually do well on a test, they do less well than if a more positive set is given. It is documented in the professional and popular literature that African Americans don’t do as well as Whites on standardized tests (Sedlacek, 1998a, 1998b, 2003, 2004; Lemann, 2000). Therefore, for African Americans, the act of taking a test probably involves dealing with the racism that may have been involved in helping to create a stereotype threat in the first place. Hence, part of the variance that is being measured when an African American takes the SAT is likely to relate to how that person handles racism. If nontraditional individuals, as defined here, can approach an evaluation with a feeling of empowerment, or expected success, they may be employing a noncognitive skill that would give a more accurate prediction of their potential. This skill should be measured directly rather than inferred from other measures.
Having long-range goals will predict success in college for students. Since role models often are more difficult to find, and the reinforcement system has been relatively random for them, many nontraditional students have difficulty understanding the relationship between current efforts and the ultimate practice of their professions (Sedlacek, 2003, 2004).
In other words, since students of color tend to face a greater culture
shock than White students in adjusting to a White student-oriented campus
culture, students of color may not be as predictable in their academic
performance in their first year as are traditional students (Farver, Sedlacek
& Brooks, 1975). However, by the
time of their second year, students of color are about as predictable as
others.
Boyer and Sedlacek (1988) found a significant
relationship between setting long-range goals and grades and retention for
international students.
Students who have done well in school tend to
have a person of strong influence who provides advice to them, particularly in
times of crisis (e.g., Sedlacek, 2003, 2004).
This individual may be in the education system, but for nontraditional
students it is often a relative or a community worker.
Having a strong support person has been shown to
be a significant correlate of grades, retention and/or graduation for African
Americans (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989), women
(Ancis & Sedlacek, 1997), athletes of all races (Sedlacek &
Adams-Gaston, 1992), international students (Boyer & Sedlacek, 1988), and
students in special support programs including Asian Americans, African
Americans, and Whites (Ting, 1997; White & Sedlacek, 1986).
Because of inconsistent reinforcement of the
relationship between individual effort and positive outcome, it may take
relatively little to make a student of color drop out or fail school
(Mallinckrodt, 1988). If a White student
drops out, there may be many forces in the society to bring him or her back
into the educational system. But the
student of color may leave school and never be heard from again
Students who are most successful in higher education have shown an
ability to organize and influence others.
The key here is that nontraditional students may show evidence of
leadership in different ways than their White counterparts, such as working in
their communities, through their places of worship, or even as street gang
leaders. Application forms and
interviews typically are slanted in directions likely to yield less useful
information about the backgrounds of nontraditional students.
It is important to pursue the culture and gender-relevant activities of
the applicants rather than to treat them as if they come from a homogenous
environment. For example, Liu and Sedlacek (1999) found that Asian American
students had unique and culturally related ways of expressing their
leadership. If an applicant succeeds in
his or her culture and is now ready to “take on” college, there is evidence
that the student has the potential to succeed.
Assertiveness is likely to be an important component in leadership as a
predictor of success (Sedlacek, 2003, 2004).
A passive operational style for students of color will deny them many
opportunities in a system that is not optimally designed for them. Seeking out resources, human and
environmental, is correlated with success for students of color.
Tracey and Sedlacek (1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989) and White and
Shelley (1996) showed evidence of the value of leadership in the retention of
Latinos and Native Americans. They also found leadership to be predictive of success in
school for African American undergraduate students. Webb, Sedlacek, Cohen, Shields,
Gracely, Hawkins, and Nieman (1997) found a similar
relationship for female African American medical students. White and Shelley (1996) also found evidence
of the value of leadership in the retention of Latinos and Native Americans.
Ancis and Sedlacek (1997) and Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) identified leadership
as a correlate of success for women in college, and Boyer and Sedlacek (1988)
found a similar relationship for female and male international students. Ting (1997) and White and Sedlacek (1986)
found that leadership correlated with academic success for students in special
support programs.
In summary, students of color and women who show evidence of leadership,
often in race or gender-related forms, prior to matriculation in college are
more likely to be successful in college than those who do not have leadership
experiences. Leadership ability is important for any student, but it may take
different forms for students with less traditional experiences.
Having a community with which students can identify, and from which they
can receive support, is critical to their academic success. For White students, there tend to be a number
of opportunities to find a community, in or out of school. The community for
nontraditional students often is based on racial, cultural or gender-related
variables. Students of color, women, and other persons with nontraditional
experiences who are active in a community learn how to handle the system,
exhibit leadership, and develop their self-concepts in such groups. For example, Mallinckrodt and Sedlacek (1987)
found that African American students who used campus athletic facilities and
certain student union programs were more likely to stay in school than those
who did not.
Fuertes, Sedlacek and Liu (1994) found identification with a community
important for Asian American success in school, as did Sedlacek and Adams-Gaston
(1992) for male and female athletes of all races. White and Shelley (1996) indicated the
importance of community in retaining Latino and Native American students.
Bennett (2002) concluded that having a race-based community correlated with
college graduation for “underrepresented minorities” in a teacher training
program. Ancis and Sedlacek (1997) found community to be a correlate of success
for undergraduate women as did Ting (1997) for White students in special
programs. Boyer and Sedlacek (1988) and
Moore (1995) also found community involvement to be important for the academic
success of international students. Therefore, those who have been involved in a
community, often based on race and/or gender, are more successful in college
than those not so involved.
The ability of someone to learn from experiences outside the classroom
correlates with their success in school. Persons of color are more apt to learn
and develop using methods that are less traditional and are outside the
education system. The methods may be
culture or gender-related and the field itself may be nontraditional. A range
of studies, (Tracey & Sedlacek (1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989) for
African Americans; Fuertes and Sedlacek (1995) for Latinos; Boyer and Sedlacek
(1988) for international students; Ting (1997) for special program students;
and Ancis and Sedlacek (1997) for women, have shown the predictive value of
nontraditional learning for the academic success of those groups.
The
noncognitive variables shown in Exhibit 1 can be assessed in a number of ways
including questionnaires, short-answer questions, essays, interviews,
portfolios, and application reviews (Sedlacek, 2004).
The
Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ)
The Noncognitive Questionnaire
(NCQ) was designed to assess the eight noncognitive variables discussed above
and shown in Exhibit 1. Tracey and Sedlacek (1984a, 1984b), Woods and Sedlacek
(1988) and Ting and Sedlacek, (2000) provided construct validity evidence for
scores on the eight dimensions measured by the NCQ for African American and
White samples. Woods and Sedlacek (1988) also showed evidence that the NCQ
correlates with a measure of stress. Warmsley (1998) found that first-year
grades for African American students at the City University of New York were
significantly better predicted by the NCQ than by the SAT. Faubert (1992)
showed that the NCQ was related to the success of ninth and tenth grade African
American rural students.
Several forms of the NCQ have been developed and employed in different selection
contexts (Sedlacek, 2004). The questionnaire can be administered on-line. Tracey and
Sedlacek (1984a) reported 2-week test-retest reliability estimates on NCQ
scores ranging from .74 to .94, with a median of .85 for the NCQ items with
different samples. Inter-rater reliability on scores from the three open-ended
NCQ items ranged from .73 to 1.00.
Alternate forms of the NCQ have shown test-retest reliability estimates
in the .80s and relationships of alternate form scores (median r = .79) with
scores from the basic NCQ (Sedlacek, 2004). Tracey and Sedlacek (1989) provided
some reliability and validity evidence, with different samples, for scores on a
revised version of the NCQ containing more items but no open-ended items, with
a somewhat revised factor structure. Lockett (1980) reported validity and
reliability data for scores from a modified version of the NCQ for Black
students at a large Midwestern university. Ting and Sedlacek (2000) provided
information on the validity and reliability of scores from a revised NCQ in
predicting retention for White students at a large Southeastern university.
Another
version of the NCQ was shown to correlate with college grades of traditional
and nontraditional students in health programs at a western state community
college (Noonan, Sedlacek, & Suthakaran, 2001). Also, Webb et al. (1997)
found that a version of the NCQ predicted success for students of color at two
medical schools on examinations offered by the National Board of Medical
Examiners.
The use of noncognitive variables in
admissions has been supported in court. The University of Maryland Medical
School employed interviews to assess applicants on the noncognitive variables
shown in Exhibit 1. It defended their use in a lawsuit that challenged their
fairness (Farmer v. Ramsay et al.,1998).
The court ruled in favor of allowing the University to employ noncognitive
variables in admitting students and the appeal was denied. In Castañeda et al. v. The
While I supported the efforts of the
There appears to be enough evidence to give noncognitive variables a try
in higher education admissions. Measures have been shown to yield reliable and
valid scores, and they are available at no cost (Sedlacek, 2004). It is
recommended that noncognitive measures be added to current measures, such as
the SAT, ACT, or GPA, in an admissions program rather than to replace existing
measures. The Three Musketeers Problem noted above could then be avoided.
Some have felt that simply eliminating the use of cognitive measures would
result in improved admission procedures. Unless there is a focus on different
sources of variance, one could be attempting to measure cognitive abilities in a
way that is less efficient than that achieved with current tests. While noncognitive
variables are beginning to be employed in admissions, problems of restriction
of range may not be present to the same extent as using cognitive measures. For
example, scores on over 16,000 applicants to the Gates Millennium Scholars
Program, which employs the noncognitive variables shown in Exhibit 1 in
selecting scholarship recipients, showed a nearly perfectly normal distribution
(Sedlacek, 2004). Also, since a variety of measurement methods can be employed
to obtain noncognitive scores, there may be less likelihood of sample bias than
with cognitive measures.
Noncognitive variables appear to be positively related to retention and
graduation criteria. The nature of thenoncognitive variables is such that they
can be employed in post-matriculation situations. They can be used in
counseling, advising, teaching, and student service programs in ways that
traditional test scores probably are not useful (Sedlacek, 2003, 2004). We
might seek to develop students on the noncognitive dimensions after they start
college, but we would not likely try to improve their SAT scores.
References
Adelstein, S. M., Sedlacek,
W. E., &
Ancis,
J. R., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1997). Predicting the academic
achievement of female students using the SAT and noncognitive variables. College
and University, 72 (3),1-8.
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W.
E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of the campus cultural
climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78 (2), 180-185.
Angoff, W. H.
(1971). The College Board admissions testing program. New
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey:Bass.
Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a Big Ten
university through project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 31, 21-29.
Bennett, C., &
Okinaka, A. M. (1990). Factors related
to persistence among Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White undergraduates at a
predominantly White university:
Comparison between first and fourth year cohorts. Urban
Review, 22, 33-60.
Betz,
N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(1987). The career psychology of women.
Boyer,
S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1988). Noncognitive predictors
of academic success for international students: A longitudinal study. Journal
of College Student Development, 29,
218-222.
Brigham, C. C. (1926).
The Scholastic Aptitude Test of the College Entrance
Examination Board. in T. S.
Fiske (ed.), The work of the College
Entrance Examination Board, 1901-1925.
Castañeda, et al. v. The Regents of the
Chung, B. Y., &
Sedlacek, W. E. (1999). Ethnic differences in career, academic, and
social self-appraisals among college freshmen. Journal of College Counseling,
2 (1), 14-24.
Farmer v. Ramsay, et al. (1998).
Farver, A. S., Sedlacek, W.
E., & Brooks, G. C., Jr.
(1975). Longitudinal predictions
of university grades for blacks and whites.
Measurement and Evaluation in
Guidance, 7, 243‑250.
Faubert,
M. (1992) Cognitive and ego development
of successful African American rural youth: Deliberate psychological education.
Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Fuertes,
J. N., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1995). Using noncognitive
variables to predict the grades and retention of Hispanic students. College
Student Affairs Journal, 14, 30-36.
Fuertes,
J. N., Sedlacek, W. E, & Liu, W.
(1994). Using the SAT and
noncognitive variables to predict the grades and retention of Asian American
university students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 27, 74-84.
Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger et
al.,
Circuit,
no. 02–516 (2002).
Grutter v. Bollinger et
al.,
(2002).
Harvey, C., & Hurtado, A. (1994).
The jurisprudence of race and meritocracy:
Standardized
testing and “race neutral” racism, in the workplace. Law and Human Behavior, 18,
223-248.
Harvey,
W. B. (2002). Minorities in higher education 2001-2002: Nineteenth annual status report.
Helm,
E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Prieto, D. O.
(1998). The relationship between attitudes toward diversity and overall
satisfaction of university students by race. Journal of College Counseling, 1,
111-120.
Knapp, L G., Kelly, J E.,
Whitmore, R W., Wu, S, & Gallego, L M. (2002). Enrollment in
Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2000 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year
2000 (NCES 2002-212).
Lemann,
N. (2000). The big test: The secret
history of the American meritocracy.
Liu, W.M, & Sedlacek,
W.E. (1999). Differences in leadership and co-curricular
perception among male and female Asian Pacific American college students. Journal
of The Freshmen Year Experience, 11,
93-114.
Lockett,
G. C. (1980). A study of traditional measures and nontraditional measures used to
predict the success of Black college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation,
Longerbeam,
S. L., Sedlacek, W. E. & Alatorre, H. M. (2004). In their own voices:
Latino student retention. National
Association of Student
Personnel Administrators Journal.41
(No. 3) 538-550. http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol41/iss3/art9.
Mallinckrodt,
B. (1988). Student retention, social
support, and dropout retention: Comparison of Black and White students. Journal
of College Student Development, 29,
60-64.
Mallinckrodt,
B, &, Sedlacek, W. E. (1987).
Student retention and the use of campus facilities by race. National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 24 (3), 28-32.
McNairy,
F. G. (1996). The challenge for higher
education: Retaining students of color.
In I. H. Johnson & A. J. Ottens (Eds.), Leveling
the playing field: Promoting academic
success for students of color (pp.3-14).
McTighe
Musil, C., García, M., Hudgins, C. A., Nettles, M. T., Sedlacek, W. E., &
Smith, D. G. (1999). To form a more
perfect union: Campus diversity initiatives.
Milem,
J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified
model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between
Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure.
Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-400.
Mohr,
J. J., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(2000). Perceived barriers to
friendship with lesbians and gay men among university
students. Journal of College Student Development, 41,
70-79.
Moore,
S. K. (1995). Indicators of academic
success and the student characteristics of international students at
Neville, H. A., Heppner, P., & Wang, L. (1997). Relations among racial identity attitudes,
perceived stressors, and coping
styles in African American
college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 75, 303-311.
Nisbet,
J., Ruble, V. E., & Schurr, K. T. (1982). Predictors of academic success
with high risk college students. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 23, 227-235.
Noonan, B., Sedlacek, W. E. & Suthakaran, V. (2001).
Predicting the success of community
college students using
noncognitive variables
(Counseling Center Research Report # 5-01).
O’Callaghan,
K. W., & Bryant, C. (1990).
Noncognitive variables: A key to Black-American academic success at a
military academy. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 121-126.
Patterson, A., Sedlacek, W. E., & Scales, W. R. (1988). The other minority: Disabled student backgrounds and attitudes
toward their university and its services. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 6, 86‑94.
Perrone, K. M., Sedlacek, W.
E., & Alexander, C. M. (2001). Gender and ethnic differences in career goal
attainment. Career Development Quarterly,
50, 168-178.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (1986). Sources of method bias in test bias research. In Measures in the college admissions process
(pp. 86-92).
Sedlacek,
W. E. (1994). Issues in advancing diversity through assessment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72,
549-553.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (1995). Using research to reduce racism at a university. Journal of Humanistic Education and
Development, 33, 131-140.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (1996). An empirical method of determining nontraditional group
status. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 28,
200-210.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (1998a, Winter). Multiple choices for standardized tests. Priorities,
10 ,1-16.
Sedlacek, W. E.
(1998b). Admissions in higher education:
Measuring cognitive and noncognitive variables.
In D. J. Wilds & R. Wilson (Eds.). Minorities in higher education 1997-98: Sixteenth annual status report (pp.
47-71).
Sedlacek,
W. E. (2003). Alternative measures in
admissions and scholarship selection. Measurement
and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development
35, 263-272.
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education.
Sedlacek,
W. E., & Brooks, G. C., Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for
change.
Steele,
C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist,
52, 613-629.
Sternberg,
R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence.
Ting,
S. R. (1997). Estimating academic
success in the first year of college for specially admitted White students: A
model combining cognitive and psychosocial predictors. Journal
of College Student Development, 38, 401-409.
Ting, S. R., & Robinson, T. L. (1998). First-year
academic success: A prediction combining cognitive and psychosocial
variables for White and
African American students. Journal of
College Student Development, 39, 599-610.
Ting,
S. R., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2000). Validity
of the Noncognitive Questionnaire-Revised 2 in
predicting the academic success of university freshmen
(Counseling Center Research Report #1-00).
Tracey,
T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1984a). Noncognitive variables
in predicting academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16,
172-178.
Tracey, T.J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984b). Using ridge regression with noncognitive variables by race in admissions. College and University, 50, 345-350.
Tracey,
T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1985). The relationship of
noncognitive variables to academic success: A longitudinal comparison by
race, Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 405-410.
Tracey,
T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1987). Prediction of college
graduation using noncognitive variables by race. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 19, 177-184.
Tracey,
T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E.
(1988). A comparison of White and
Black student academic success using noncognitive variables: A LISREL analysis.
Research in Higher Education, 27, 333-348.
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Factor structure of the Noncognitive Questionnaire-Revised across samples of
Black and White college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 637-648.
Warmsley, D. (1998, October). Incorporating
noncognitive variables in the scholarship selection process of African American
students. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of
College Admission Counseling,
Webb, C. T., Sedlacek, W. E., Cohen, D., Shields, P., Gracely, E., Hawkins, M., & Nieman, L. (1997). The impact of
nonacademic variables on performance at two medical schools. Journal of the National Medical Association, 89 (3), 173-180.
White, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1986). Noncognitive predictors of grades and retention for specially admitted students. Journal of College Admissions, 3, 20-23.
White,
C. J., & Shelley, C. (1996). Telling
stories: Students and administrators talk about retention. In I. H. Johnson and
A. J. Ottens (Eds.), Leveling the playing
field: Promoting academic success for students of color (pp. 15-34).
Williams,
W. M. (1997, October 10). Reliance on
test scores is a conspiracy of lethargy.
Chronicle of Higher Education,
p. A60.
Willingham,
W. W. (1985). Success in college: The role
of personal qualities and academic ability.
Woods, P. A., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). Construct and congruent validity of the Noncognitive
Questionnaire (NCQ)
(
Exhibit 1
Description of
Noncognitive Variables
Variable #
|
Variable Name |
|
1 |
Positive Self-Concept ·
Demonstrates confidence,
strength of character, determination, and independence. |
|
2 |
Realistic Self-Appraisal ·
Recognizes and accepts any
strengths and deficiencies, especially academic, and works hard at
self-development. Recognizes need to
broaden his/her individuality. |
|
3 |
Understands and Knows How to Handle Racism (the System) ·
Exhibits a realistic view
of the system based upon personal experience of racism. Committed to improving the existing
system. Takes an assertive approach to
dealing with existing wrongs, but is not hostile to society, nor is a
"cop-out." Able to handle
racist system. |
|
4 |
Prefers Long-Range to Short-Term or Immediate Needs ·
Able to respond to
deferred gratification, plans ahead and sets goals. |
|
5 |
Availability of Strong Support Person ·
Seeks and takes advantage
of a strong support network or has someone to turn to in a crisis or for
encouragement. |
|
6 |
Successful Leadership Experience ·
Demonstrates strong
leadership in any area of his/her background (e.g. church, sports,
non-educational groups, gang leader, etc.). |
|
7 |
Demonstrated Community Service ·
Participates and is
involved in his/her community. |
|
8 |
Knowledge Acquired in or about a Field ·
Acquires knowledge in a
sustained and/or culturally related ways in any field. |