Setting a college-readiness cut score for the CRMT

CRMT Working GroupAugust 19, 20091:30-3:30

Background

Pilot test summary

Current MPT-I placement cut scores

Contrasting groups

Group discussion

CRMT Background

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1906-S2.PL.pdf

System Agreements around Using CRMT

•Provosts’ agreement http://www.washington.edu/oea/services/testing_center/crmt/ProvostsAgreement.pdf

• CTC agreement

Purpose

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study 1

To relate MPT test scores to subsequent course grades to assist in setting CRMT college readiness cut score

Research Questions How does student performance on the MPT-G

compare to performance on the MPT-I?

How well do student test scores predict student grades?

1 McGhee D., N. Lowell, J. Gillmore, and J. Peterson (2009) 2009 General Mathematics Placement Test (MPT-G) Pilot , OEA Report 09-03 [http://www.washington.edu/oea/pdfs/reports/OEAReport0903.pdf]

Method

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Students at four-year universities took the MPT-G (n = 557) or the MPT-I (n = 692) for placement into courses

Students at other campuses were offered the opportunity to use test scores for placement at four-year universities

Tests administered between October 2008 and June 2009

Edmonds CC (n = 89)

Spokane Falls CC (n = 137)

TESC (n = 34)

21 high schools (n = 2220)

Results

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Test Reliability

Both the MPT-G and MPT-I showed excellent internal consistency ( = .84 and .85, respectively)

Test Difficulty

The MPT-G was more difficult than the MPT-I (Mns = 18.4 and 20.4, respectively; percentage equivalents = 52.6% and 58.3%)

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Test Difficulty (continued)

The difference in test difficulty was observed for all three educational sectors, but was most pronounced at four-year institutions

Average total score by test type and institution type

Results

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Test Difficulty (continued)

Students enrolled or enrolling in college level courses scored 6 points higher than students taking courses below college level

Average total score by test type and course level

Results

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Course Grades

MPT-G and MPT-I scores were significantly correlated with subsequent math course grades both at high schools and four-year schools (r .4)

Results

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Course Grades (continued)

Students who passed their math course (grade 2.0) tended to have scored significantly higher on the MPT than did students who did not pass

Results

Average total score by course level and grade (four-year schools)

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Course Grades (continued)

The probability of passing a course generally increased with total test score

Results

Observed rates of success in non-precalculus/calculus college level courses as a function of total test score (four-year schools)

Conclusions

2008-2009 CRMT Pilot Study

Both tests show good discriminant validity in the superior performance of students taking college level math courses over those in pre-college level courses

Both tests show good predictive validity by the significant correlations between total test scores and mathematics course grades

Both the MPT-G and MPT-I show excellent reliability

Current Intermediate Math Placement Test (MPT-I) Placement Cutoffs (July 2009)Placement Cut Score Central Eastern UW-S Wash St Western

30 206202

Calculus for Arch.Business Calculus

25 118 Accel precalc

23 211200105

Elem teachers Finite mathPrecalculus

107 Elem functions

21 120 Precalculus

20 251201

Elem teachersFinite math

381156114

K-12 teachersAlg for businessPrecalculus

19 154 Precalculus 2

18 153 Precalculus 1

17 115 Liberal arts 111107

Business Liberal arts

240 Stats intro

15 114 Alg concepts 212210205

Stats introMath introStat’l thinking

112107101

Alg functionsMath reasoningElem teachers

12 104 Intermed alg

4 103 Alg intro

0 100.1 Algebra 100 Comb 103/104 98 Intermed alg 101 Elem alg review 10699

Quant reasoningAlg intro

DefinitionContrasting Groups

A family of methods to use actual performance data of known groups to set cut scores

Process1. Define two groups (“Masters” and “Non-Masters”)

2. Analyze data to find score(s) that best differentiate(s) between groupsa. Select the point of intersection of two frequency distributions

(visual inspection)

b. Find the midpoint between average scores (computation)

c. Find score at which probability of group membership is .50 (using logistic regression)

Defining the Groups

Contrasting Groups

You want the groups to be meaningful, defensible, and clearly distinct

Not distinct enough

High school Algebra 1 students vs.

Post-secondary Calculus students

(All) high school students vs.

(All) post-secondary students

More extreme than necessary

Possible Groups

Contrasting Groups

1. any non-college, < 2.0 vs. any college, 2.0

2. any non-college, < 2.0 vs. post-secondary, college, 2.0

3. post-secondary, non-college vs. post-secondary, college

4. post-secondary, non-college, < 2.0 vs. post-secondary, college, 2.0

5. high school, non-college vs. post-secondary, college

6. high school, non-college , < 2.0 vs. post-secondary, college, 2.0

Comparison 1

Any non-college class,

<2.0

Any college-level class,

2.0+MID-

POINTMPT-G Median 13 23 18.0

Mean 13.56 22.71 18.1SD 4.84 6.04Valid N 162 370

MPT-I Median 15.5 25 20.3Mean 15.92 24.49 20.2SD 5.17 5.8Valid N 182 528

Comparison 2

Any non-college class,

<2.0

Postsec, college-level

class, 2.0+MID-

POINTMPT-G Median 13 21 17.0

Mean 13.56 21.66 17.6SD 4.84 5.32Valid N 162 131

MPT-I Median 15.5 25 20.3Mean 15.92 23.88 19.9SD 5.17 5.31Valid N 182 199

Comparison 3

Postsec, non-college class

Postsec, college-level

classMID-

POINTMPT-G Median 12 21 16.5

Mean 12.28 20.98 16.6SD 3.9 5.29Valid N 60 190

MPT-I Median 14 23 18.5Mean 14.51 22.89 18.7SD 4.92 5.29Valid N 68 293

Comparison 4

Postsec, non-college class,

<2.0

Postsec, college-level

class, 2.0+MID-

POINTMPT-G Median 12 21 16.5

Mean 11.7 21.66 16.7SD 3.86 5.32Valid N 27 131

MPT-I Median 14 25 19.5Mean 13.82 23.88 18.9SD 4.18 5.31Valid N 33 199

Comparison 5

HS, non-college class

Postsec, college-level

classMID-

POINTMPT-G Median 16 21 18.5

Mean 16.42 20.98 18.7SD 5.89 5.29Valid N 530 190

MPT-I Median 18 23 20.5Mean 17.96 22.89 20.4SD 5.43 5.29Valid N 636 293

Comparison 6

HS, non-college class,

<2.0

Postsec, college-level

class, 2.0+MID-

POINTMPT-G Median 13 21 17.0

Mean 13.93 21.66 17.8SD 4.94 5.32Valid N 135 131

MPT-I Median 16 25 20.5Mean 16.38 23.88 20.1SD 5.27 5.31Valid N 149 199