This study examined the efficacy of an ACT-based merit index (ACT-index) in predicting the first-to-second-year retention of undergraduate college students. The ACT-index quantifies the relationship between students' ACT Composite score and the average ACT Composite score of their high school classmates. Higher education policy makers have proposed the use of merit-indices, similar to the one examined in this article, to predict retention as a way to increase diversity and combat anti-Affirmative Action trends. Results indicated that the ACT-index, although a significant predictor of retention, failed to predict retention as well as the ACT-Composite score. Evidence, however, indicates that further exploration into retention models that utilize merit-indices is warranted. Policy implications of these findings are discussed.
BloseG. (1999). Modeled retention and graduation rates: Calculating expected retention and graduation rates for multicampus university systems. In GaitherG. H. (Ed.), Promising practices in recruitment, remediation, and retention (pp. 69–86). (New Directions for Higher Education, n. 108) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CooperK. J. (1999). Admissions models for inclusion. Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(18), 34–35.
10.
FreundR. J., & WilsonW. J. (1997). Statistical methods (Rev. Ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11.
HallC. (1999, May). African American college students at a predominantly white institution: Patterns of success. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Institutional Research, Seattle, Washington.
12.
LevitzR. S.NoelL., & RichterB. J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success. In GaitherG. H. (Ed.), Promising practices in recruitment, remediation, and retention (pp. 31–50). (New Directions for Higher Education, n. 108) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
MurtaughP. A.BurnsL. D. & SchusterJ. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher Education, 40, 355–371.
14.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2001a). The digest of education statistics. Retrieved October 29, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest.
ParkerC. (1999). Who really cares about retention?Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(18), 144.
18.
PeltierG. L.LadenR., & MatrangaM. (1999). Student persistence in college: A review of research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357–376.
19.
RoachR. (1999). The state of retention. Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(18), 28–29.
20.
ShelleyM. C. (1999). Multivariate techniques for dichotomous dependent variables. In MillerG. J. & WhickerM. L. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration (pp. 409–452). New York: Marcel Dekker.
21.
St. JohnE. P.HuS.SimmonsA. B., & MusobaG. D. (2001). Aptitude vs. merit: What matters in persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 131–152.
22.
Texas Education Agency (2000). Results of college admissions testing in Texas for 1998–99 graduating seniors (Publication No. GE00-601-04). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
23.
TintoV. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
TrossS. A.HarperJ. P.OsherL. W., & KneidingerL. M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 323–334.
