Various analyses have used the transfer rate as a performance indicator for community colleges, but the question of what constitutes an appropriate denominator in the transfer-rate equation remains a point of contention. This article examines the potential drawbacks of using student-reported educational goals to determine which students are included in the denominator and notes how the behavioral signal approach—based on the courses students take and complete—may be a more appropriate alternative. In addition, the article discusses the prospects of employing a “transfer opportunity diagnosis” based on multiple indicators.
Bahr, P.R., Hom, W., & Perry, P. ( 2005). College transfer performance: A methodology for equitable measurement and comparison. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 13, 73-87.
2.
Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. ( 2005, June). Is student success labeled institutional failure? (CCRC Working Paper No. 1). New York: Columbia University.
3.
Bailey, T., & Weininger, E.B. (2002). Performance, graduation, and transfer of immigrants and natives in City University of New York community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 359-377.
4.
Banks, D.L. ( 1990). Why a consistent definition of transfer? An ERIC review . Community College Review, 18, 47-53.
5.
Beatty, P.C., & Willis, G.B. ( 2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing . Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 287-311.
6.
Boughan, K. ( 2001). Closing the transfer data gap: Using National Student Clearinghouse data in community college outcomes research. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 8, 107-116.
7.
Boughan, K., & Clagett, C. ( 2008). Degree progress measures for community colleges: Analyzing the Maryland model. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 15, 150-162.
8.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. ( 1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago: Rand McNally.
9.
Caplan, N. ( 1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 183-197). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
10.
CCCApply Project Center. (n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.cccnext.net/cccapply/
11.
Chancellor’s Office, California Community Colleges. ( 2008, March). Focus on results: Accountability reporting for the community colleges. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from the Technology, Research and Information Systems Web site: http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/arcc_2008_final.pdf .
12.
Cohen, A.M. ( 2005). The future of transfer. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 12, 85-91.
13.
Cohen, A.M., & Sanchez, J.R. ( 1997). The transfer rate: A model of consistency. Community College Journal, 68(2), 24-26.
14.
Cook, T.D., Cooper, H., & Cordray, D.S. ( 1994). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell SAGE.
15.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L.V. ( 1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell SAGE.
16.
Ehrenberg, R.G., & Smith, C.L. ( 2004). Analyzing the success of student transitions from 2- to 4-year institutions within a state. Economics of Education Review, 23, 11-28.
17.
Esser, H. ( 1993). Response set: Habit, frame or rational choice? In D. Krebs & P. Schmidt (Eds.), New directions in attitude measurement (pp. 293-314). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
18.
Green, L.W., & Lewis, F.M. ( 1986). Measurement and evaluation in health education and health promotion. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield .
19.
Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Hagedorn, L.S., Cypers, S., & Lester, J. ( 2008). Looking in the review mirror: Factors affecting transfer for urban community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 643-664.
21.
Hagedorn, L.S., & Kress, A.M. ( 2008). Using transcripts in analyses: Directions and opportunities . In T. H. Bers (Ed.), Student tracking in the community college (New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 143, pp. 7-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Horn, L., & Lew, S. ( 2007). California community college transfer rates: Who is counted makes a difference. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.
23.
Hunik, M., Glasziou, P., Siegel, J., Weeks, J., Pliskin, J., Elstein, A., et al. (2001). Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Leigh, D.E., & Gill, A.M. ( 2003). Do community colleges really divert students from earning bachelor’s degrees? Economics of Education Review, 22, 23-30.
25.
Long, B.T., & Kurlaender, M. (2008). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? (Working Paper No. 14367). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
Mohr, L.B. ( 1995). Impact analysis for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. ( 2007). Beyond the open door: Increasing student success in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: California State University. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.csus.edu/ihe/PDFs/R_Beyond_Open_Door_08-07.pdf .
28.
Oakes, J. ( 1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Reed, D. ( 2008). California’s future workforce: Will there be enough college graduates?San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
30.
Roksa, J., & Calcagno, J.C. (2008). Making the transition to four-year institutions: Academic preparation and transfer (CCRC Working Paper No. 13). New York: Community College Research Center. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/ContentByType.asp?t=1
31.
Roksa, J., & Keith, B. ( 2008). Credits, time, and attainment: Articulation policies and success after transfer. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 236-254.
32.
Rosenbaum, J. ( 2001). Beyond college for all. New York: Russell SAGE.
Schoenecker, C., & Reeves, R. ( 2008). The National Student Clearinghouse: The largest current student tracking database. In T. H. Bers (Ed.), Student tracking in the community college ( New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 143, pp. 47-57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Schuck, P.H., & Zeckhauser, R.J. (2006). Targeting in social programs . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
36.
Selvin, S. ( 1996). Statistical analysis of epidemiologic data. New York: Oxford.
37.
Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. ( 2006, November). California’s community college students . California counts: Demographic trends and profiles, 8(2). Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1106RSCC.pdf .
38.
Spicer, S.L., & Armstrong, W.B. (1996). Transfer: The elusive denominator . In T. Rifkin (Ed.), Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs (New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 96, pp. 45-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarz, N. ( 1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
Surette, B. ( 2001). Transfer from two-year to four-year college: An analysis of gender differences. Economics of Education Review, 20, 151-163.
41.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. ( 2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University.
42.
Townsend, B.K. ( 2002). Transfer rates: A problematic criterion for measuring the community college. In T. H. Bers & H. D. Calhoun (Eds.), Next steps for the community college (New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 117, pp. 13-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
43.
Weisberg, H.F. ( 2005). The total survey error approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
