Single equation regression models have been used to test the effect of Supplemental Instruction (SI) on student retention. These models, however, fail to account for the two salient features of SI attendance and retention: (1) both SI attendance and retention are categorical variables, and (2) are jointly determined endogenous variables. Adopting primarily from the economics education literature, this article applies the bivariate probit model, a model appropriate for the case of simultaneous binary choice, to analyze the effect of SI attendance on retention. It is demonstrated that single equation methods are likely to overestimate this effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlancR. A.DeBuhrL. E., & MartinD. L. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80–89.
2.
BoexL. F. J. (2000). Attributes of effective economics instructors: An analysis of student evaluations. The Journal of Economics Education, 31(3), 211–227.
3.
BurnettN. J. (1997). Gender economics courses in liberal arts colleges. The Journal of Economic Education, 28(4), 369–377.
4.
Center for Supplemental Instruction, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Center for Academic Development (2000). Supplemental instruction: Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United States. www.umkc.edu/cad/si.
5.
CongosD. H., & SchoepsN. (1997). A model for evaluating retention programs. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(2), 2–4, 6, 8, 24.
6.
CongosD. H., & SchoepsN. (1999). Methods to determine the impact of SI programs on colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 1(1), 59–82.
7.
DeyE. L., & AstinA. W. (1993). Statistical alternatives for studying college student retention: A comparative analysis of logit, probit, and linear regression. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 569–581.
8.
GreeneW. H. (1998). Gender economics courses in liberal arts colleges: Further results. The Journal of Economic Education, 29(4), 291–300.
9.
GreeneW. H. (2000). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
HilmerM. J. (2001). A comparison of alternative specifications of the college attendance equation with an extension to two-stage selectivity-correction models. Economics of Education Review, 20(3), 263–278.
11.
LightA., & StrayerW. (2000). Determinants of college completion. Journal of Human Resources, 35(2), 299–332.
12.
SpectorL. C., & MazzeoM. (1980, Spring). Probit analysis and economic education. The Journal of Economic Education, 11, 37–44.
13.
WeilerW. C., & PierroD. J. (1988). Selection bias and the analysis of persistence of part-time undergraduate students. Research in Higher Education, 29(3), 261–272.
