1. ACCUPLACER R Wins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates ACCUPLACER R Conference Las Vegas, 2005

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. ACCUPLACER R 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

5. 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)

6. Approval Process Demonstrate reliability –(test/retest model) Item bias analysis –(DIF, linguistic bias, and Disproportionate Impact) Specify user support –Manuals, technical help ADA

7. 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

8. 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

9. Placement Accuracy

10. Analysis Frequency distribution of responses across score clusters Objective: Determine whether ACCUPLACER R 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

11. Typical Data Set

13. Findings ACCUPLACER R Tests Place Students with greater than 82% Accuracy ACCUPLACER R 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

14. Approval Reading Comprehension, Sentence Skills, Arithmetic, Algebra, CLM, 3 LOEP tests Received Full Approval Until 2012

15. 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

16. Conclusions ACCUPLACER R 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

17. ACCUPLACER R Wins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates Thank You for Not Throwing Things at the Presenter