College Student Inventory Analysis, Page 10

College Student Inventory Analysis:

Investigating Its Use with Minority and First-Generation College Students

By Melissa D. Ousley, Ph.D., Research Analyst, The University of Arizona

and Gary Cruz, A.B.D., Assistant Programs Director,

SHPE-AHETEMS at The University of Texas at Arlington

October 19, 2005

Introduction

Located in the southwestern region of the United States, The University of Arizona was established in 1885 as the state's land-grant, flagship university. This Research Intensive public institution currently serves over 28,000 undergraduate students, with a total student body of approximately 37,000 students. Over 70 percent of students are Arizona residents, and 25 percent are ethnic minorities (The University of Arizona 2005 Factbook). In an effort to improve retention, persistence and graduation rates of undergraduate students, the University created a Recruitment and Retention Master Plan in 2005 to underscore its mission as a "student-centered" university. Part of this commitment to students and retention included using a pre-enrollment instrument to identify potentially at-risk students prior to their enrollment at the University (2005 University of Arizona Strategic Retention Plan, Action Item I.A.1). Historically, The University of Arizona has used a measure called the Academic Index (AI) to measure incoming students' ability. The AI considers students' high school grade-point average, advanced placement and honors courses taken and SAT/ACT scores. While the AI is the most predictive instrument available to gauge potential student success, it is less predictive for minority students, disabled students, first-generation students and those with stressors unaccounted for in traditional achievement measures. As much of retention literature suggests, personal motivation and resilience are important predictors of success, particularly for these populations (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). To assess motivation, several departments adopted the College Student Inventory (CSI), which measures dropout proneness, receptivity to institutional help, educational stress and predicted academic difficulty.

Multicultural Programs and Services (MPS) and Disability Resources (DR), within the division of Multicultural Affairs and Student Success (MASS), adopted the CSI and conducted an investigation to assess the effectiveness of the CSI with regard to predictability for minority and first-generation students. The mission of MASS is to be a catalyst for increasing access, success and the full engagement of all students, faculty and staff at The University of Arizona by applying theory and practical techniques to develop innovative services and programs; influencing the design of policy, programs, facility and curricular environments; heightening the discourse on the impact of culture and difference; and building strategic alliances with campus community and national organizations. Both MPS and DR utilize a holistic retention model to assist students in attaining their educational goals, focusing on academic support, leadership development, and increasing access and opportunities. Program development and staffing is grounded in higher education literature and departmental research, and is responsive to critical issues for the students served. Through this departmental collaboration this investigation of the CSI was conducted and asks the following research questions.

What is the correlation between the CSI compound scales, the UA Academic Index and academic grade-point averages (GPA)?
What is the statistical significance of the CSI as an early indicator of GPA, academic probation and attrition?
How is the CSI utilized by retention professionals at The University of Arizona?

Literature Review

Variables for attrition can be physical, social, emotional, spiritual, academic or economic. They can occur in combination and can be internally or externally based. Noel, Levitz and Saluri (1985) list a variety of variables that may lead to attrition: lack of money to meet educational, living and personal expenses; housing problems that make it impossible for students to find convenient and affordable housing or force them into living arrangements that interfere with learning; roommate problems; transportation problems; work demands; social demands; rejection by family or friends because they do not value a college education or because they feel threatened by the decision to go to college; ethnic or gender discrimination; family obligations; procrastination; loneliness; inability to assert needs and seek help; self-doubt; fear of failure; fear of success; fear of rejection; value conflicts; career indecision; and boredom. McGinty Stodt and Klepper (1987) cite poor academic advising and boredom with courses as leading reasons for dropping out.

Integration is also important. A consistent finding is that students leave because the college is not a good match for their needs socially, academically, economically or religiously (Hossler & Bean, 1990). Fitting in depends on a number of variables between the student and the institution, and either can change to enhance fit.

Decisions to withdraw from college are complex and develop over time, making intervention possible (Hossler & Bean, 1990). Institutions have the opportunity to be proactive in reducing attrition. It is critical to understand student reasons for attrition in order to increase retention, persistence and graduation rates.

According to Noel-Levitz (Stratil, n.d.), the CSI is a psychometric instrument designed primarily to measure the motivational traits and social background factors related to student academic outcomes, and is especially salient to incoming first-year students. A reliability and validity study conducted by Noel-Levitz in 2001 indicated that the scales have a reliability index of 0.79, which exceeds the minimal accepted level of 0.7 (Miller, 2001). The University of Arizona uses Form B, which consists of 100 questions measuring 16 scales in four compound scales: Academic Motivation (Study Habits, Intellectual Interests, Verbal Confidence, Math Confidence, Desire to Finish College and Attitude Toward Educators), Receptivity to Support Services (Academic Assistance, Personal Counseling, Social Enhancement, Career Counseling and Financial Guidance) and General Coping Ability and Social Motivation (Family Emotional Support, Sense of Financial Security, Opinion Tolerance, Career Closure and Sociability). Each of the four compound scales is measured on a stanine, with a normal distribution scale from one to nine as follows: one equals low risk, five equals average risk and nine equals high risk.

Methods

This is a preliminary study to be followed by further research. The research design included descriptive, inferential and qualitative analysis. The descriptive numerical analysis consisted of comparative sample means and standard deviations. Inferential numerical analysis included correlations and ANOVAs between each of the four CSI compound scales and the Academic Index, semester and cumulative GPAs and type of academic action. For the qualitative analysis of this study, the researchers surveyed 18 DMPS professional and paraprofessional staff for feedback on the use of the CSI.

There are two forms of academic action at The University of Arizona: academic warning or probation. Freshmen who have completed fewer than 14 units at the University with cumulative GPA between 1.750 and 2.000, or who have completed from 14 through 26 units at the University with a cumulative GPA of between 1.840 and 2.000 are put on academic warning status. Academic warning status invokes no academic penalties and is not indicated on the student's permanent record. This status serves as a warning to students beginning their college careers that their performance is below the level required for successful completion of an academic program. Students in this status are strongly encouraged to seek academic counseling. Students not meeting the standards of normal progress on academic warning status are put on academic probation. Students on academic probation are subject to restrictions with respect to courses and extracurricular activities that are imposed by the academic dean of the college in which the student is enrolled. Students are removed from probation upon earning the minimum cumulative GPA required (fewer than 14 units: 1.750, from 14 through 26 units: 1.840, 27 or more units: 2.000) (The University of Arizona Academic Policies).

The sample consisted of 119 incoming freshmen in Fall 2003, with 63% female and 37% male. The majority were first-generation students with 35% whose parents never attended college and 57% whose parents never graduated college. The majority of students sampled were ethnic minorities: 17% African American, 50% Latino/a, 11% Native American, 15% Asian Pacific, 13% Caucasian and 3% Unknown Ethnicity. Students' predicted GPA using the University's Academic Index ranged from 1.72-3.72, and the mean GPA was 2.66.

Findings

The initial analysis of stanine and percentile scores revealed that the majority of students (59.6%) were predicted to have low dropout proneness (mean of 3.3) and an average GPA of 2.76. The stanines for educational stress and academic difficulty were low (means of 4.7 and 4.0, respectively). In contrast, the 22% of students predicted to have high dropout proneness (mean of 6.5) were predicted to have an average GPA of 2.36. Stanines for educational stress and academic difficulty were high (means of 5.9 and 6.3). However, the stanine for receptivity to assistance was actually higher than students with lower dropout proneness: 7.0 as compared to 6.5 for those with low dropout proneness and 6.9 for those at the middle level of dropout proneness. (See Table A).

Table A

Chart Image: Stanine Score - Dropout Proneness

Stanine Score - Dropout Proneness

Stanine Score	1-4 (low)	1-4 (low)	5 (average)	5 (average)	6-9 (high)	6-9 (high)
Sample Size (n)	71	71	21	21	27	27
	Mean	St. Dev.	Mean	St. Dev.	Mean	St. Dev.
ACADEMIC INDEX	175.8	39.1	172..4	40.8	135.5	44.1
CUM GPA	2.87	.7	2.79	0.7	2.29	0.8
Fall 2003 GPA	2.87	.8	2.73	.9	2.16	1.0
Spring 2004 GPA	2.89	.8	2.65	.9	2.2	1.1
DROPOUT P	22.5	11.3	50.5	5.4	75.4	8.8
DROPOUT S	3.3	.9	5.0	0.0	6.5	0.7
EDSTRESS P	44.9	24.2	63.0	24.0	63.5	25.0
EDSTRESS S	4.7	1.5	6.0	1.6	5.9	1.6
GPA DIFF P	33.9	20.1	42.8	17.5	70.9	16.3
GPA DIFF S	4.0	1.3	4.7	1.0	6.3	1.1
RECEPT P	71.3	25.3	73.2	23.8	78.3	19.9
RECEPT S	6.5	1.9	6.9	1.7	7.0	1.5

College Student Inventory Analysis, Page 10

After the end of Fall 2003, four students were given academic warning and 15 were put on probation. By the end of Fall 2004, seven had been university disqualified, meaning they were restricted from registering at The University of Arizona and may return to the University only on the basis of evidence that underlying conditions have materially improved and that they are now capable of academic success (The University of Arizona Academic Policies). Sixteen students did not enroll in the Fall of 2004, one continued on academic warning, and nine continued on academic probation. Tables B details this information and Table C provides a descriptive profile of those students who did not return in Fall 2004.

Table B and C

Chart Image: Academic Action

Academic Action
	Dropout Proness Stanine 1-4	Dropout Proness Stanine 5	Dropout Proness Stanine 6-9	Total
Fall 2003 Academic Warning	1	2	1	4
Fall 2003 Continued on Probation	0	1	0	1
Fall 2003 Probation	7	1	6	14
FALL 2003 TOTAL	8	4	7	19
	-	-	-	-
Spring 2004 Academic Warning	1	0	0	1
Spring 2004 Continued on Probation	0	2	3	5
Spring 2004 Probation	2	0	2	4
Spring 2004 University Disqualified	3	0	4	7
SPRING 2004 TOTAL	6	2	9	17
	-	-	-	-
Fall 2004 Not Enrolled	5	3	8	16
Fall 2004 Continued on Warning	1	0	0	1
Fall 2004 Continued on Probation	2	2	5	9
FALL 2004 TOTAL	8	5	13	26

College Student Inventory Analysis, Page 10

Chart Image: Descriptive Profile of Students Who Did Not Return in Fall 2004

Descriptive Profile of Students Who Did Not Return in Fall 2004
	ACAD INDX	CUM GPA	First Generation	Stanine-DRP PRON	Stanine-EDUC STRESS	Stanine-ACAD DIFF	Stanine-RECEPT HELP
	219	3.00	No	4	5	4	8
	196	1.41	Yes	1	6	3	6
	171	3.06	Yes	5	6	4	8
	167	3.1	No	5	5	4	8
	165	2.8	Yes	7	7	7	8
	150	2.27	No	5	4	6	6
	144	2.33	Yes	6	4	5	9
	141	1.4	No	7	4	8	4
	128	.6	Yes	4	2	4	7
	128	2.62	Yes	7	7	6	4
	125	2.77	No	6	7	6	5
	122	1.07	Yes	7	8	6	8
	120	2.11	Yes	3	4	5	7
	108	.46	Yes	3	8	6	6
	98	1.21	Yes	6	8	5	8
	89	.83	No	7	9	7	7
Max	219	310		7	9	8	9
Avg	142	1.94		5.2	5.9	5.4	6.8
Min	89	0.46		1	2	3	4

College Student Inventory Analysis, Page 10

The majority of students maintained an academic status of good standing and had a mean cumulative GPA of 3.01. Their predicted GPA from the Academic Index was 2.75, and their mean stanine for dropout proneness was low (4.0). Three students originally on good standing were put on academic probation and had a mean GPA of 1.60 (versus the 2.31 predicted GPA from the Academic Index). These students had a mean stanine of 5.7 on dropout proneness with low educational stress (mean of 4.3) but a high stanine for academic difficulty (mean of 6.0). Eight students with a mid-level stanine for dropout proneness (mean of 5.4) were not enrolled in Fall 2004. Given their mean GPA of 2.72 and mid-level stanines, this is likely due to other reasons beyond educational stress or academic difficulty. Four students put on academic probation achieved a status of good standing, which may be correlated with high receptivity for assistance (mean of 7.3). Seven students with mid-high level stanines for dropout proneness (5.3), educational stress (5.1) and academic difficulty (5.9) had an average GPA of 1.64 and remained on academic probation. Eight students with mid-high level stanines for dropout proneness (5.0), educational stress (6.1) and academic difficulty (5.6) had an average GPA of 1.16 and were not enrolled in Fall 2004.

Analysis of the data shows that the CSI's measure of academic difficulty was negatively correlated to The University of Arizona's Academic Index, Cumulative GPA and Semester GPAs. Thus, the higher the GPA, the lower the risk of academic difficulty. There was a positive correlation between academic difficulty and dropout proneness and educational stress. While the CSI's measure of academic difficulty had a strong correlation to GPA and academic probation, the measures for dropout proneness, educational stress and receptivity to assistance were not statistically significant predictors of GPA or academic probation. There was a strong correlation between the Academic Index and Cumulative GPA and the Academic Index and Fall GPA (see Table D).

Table D

Chart Image: Table

Summary: ** p<.01 (2-tailed); *p<.05 (2-tailed)

Table
	Academic Index	CUM GPA	034 GPA	041 GPA	Dropout S	Edstress S	GPA DIFF S	Recept S
1	1.000	0.518**	0.566**	0.364**	-0.337**	-0.114	-0.583**	-0.063
2		1.000	0.888**	0.821**	-0.255**	-0.21*	-0.532	-0.117
3			1.000	0.589**	-0.288**	-0.209*	-0.58**	-0.101
4				1.000	-0.242**	-0.19*	-0.406**	-0.11
5					1.000	0.371**	0.564**	0.074
6						1.00	0.349**	0.292**
7							1.000	0.267**
8								1.000

College Student Inventory Analysis, Page 10

Qualitative findings revealed that the CSI was used by professional and paraprofessional staff for several purposes in working with minority and first-generation students. It was used to initiate discussion of a student's strengths and challenges and stimulated self awareness, self-assessment and self-efficacy.

I typically meet with the students individually in a one-on-one meeting

and then I have them read their student report. I go over what each section

represents and how the results can be interpreted. I ask them for feedback

on the survey, in particular, what they think is accurate and what is not. For

the pieces that they feel are correct, we then investigate what resources are

available to develop their assets and what can be done to improve their

weaknesses. (Retention Specialist)

The instrument was useful for informing practice in approaching a student based on the CSI recommended areas identified as high need and was useful as a reference point for concerns raised by paraprofessional staff, such as peer advisors.

It is a worthwhile investment because it allows us to have an overall view

of the student without having to jump into these questions at a first meeting,

or slowly learning these things about the student too late in the semester.

We are able to face things head on. (Retention Specialist)

The CSI was reported to be a helpful goal-setting tool and a mechanism for conveying a sense of caring and commitment to student welfare and success. It was marker for understanding the specific needs of first-generation students and a helpful gauge for determining class content and workshop topics.

The CSI has been integrated division wide as an advising and retention tool. Multicultural Affairs and Student Success has programs specifically geared toward traditionally at risk for attrition populations as well as more general retention programs that serve multiple audiences. African American Student Affairs, Asian Pacific Student Affairs, Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs, the Disability Resource Center and Native American Student Affairs have all implemented interventions to increase retention and success for the specific populations they serve. For example, the First Year Scholar's Program in Native American Student Affairs is designed to promote a living-learning community for incoming first-year, full-time, on-campus Native American students. The goal is to engage students in a supportive environment that will help them to make a successful transition to the University. Students live in the same wing in a residence hall and take several courses in common, including a class that incorporates the CSI and focuses on first year survival skills and retention. Students are provided individual support by the director of Native American Student Affairs, retention specialists, and specially trained peer advisors, who are upperclassmen educated in retention issues and paraprofessional counseling skills. In addition, activities are planned throughout the academic year to provide native students a cultural connection and to educate non-native students about Native American issues.

A similar initiative for multiple audiences is the Connections Class, piloted this fall. This goal of this class is to educate students about retention and to provide a diverse learning environment. It is open to all students, and is salient to many students traditionally at risk for attrition: first generation students, students with financial need, students with disabilities and minority students. Like the First Year's Scholars Program, this class focuses on first year survival skills, incorporating the CSI in the class. The CSI is used to inform practice for working with students individually and to guide the direction of the class. Students not only learn about how to improve study skills, but they also gain cultural capital in navigating the university system and with research, writing and presentation skills. Issues of privilege, power and diversity are discussed throughout the semester, culminating in a cultural immersion experience and a research paper focused on diversity and retention issues. Students not only benefit from a diverse classroom experience but also receive free individual support from peer advisors and free tutoring.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although the preliminary quantitative data for this study of minority and first-generation students indicates that not all CSI measures were strongly correlated in predicting GPA, academic probation and ultimately, attrition, the qualitative data indicates that it is valuable for informing practice and guiding retention efforts. Not only does the CSI inform practice to holistically support students on an individual level, but it can also be used to determine retention and success class content and guide class discussions. On a division wide level, it can be used to support multiple student populations and can guide program initiatives.

Additional research is needed, and the next step will be to further populate the data and extend the analysis. The researchers are expanding the investigation to include a larger cohort that will include students with disabilities and that will disaggregate for ethnicity, gender, and first-generation status, among other variables.

References

Hossler, D., Bean, J., & Associates. (1990). The strategic management of college

enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 147-199.

McGinty Stodt, M., & Klepper, W. (1987). Increasing retention: Academic and

student affairs administrators in partnership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 9-12.

Miller, R. (2001). College Student Inventory--Form B: Fall 2001 validity study.

Littleton: Noel-Levitz, pp. 1-12.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. (1985). Increasing student retention.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 45-465.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and

insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 6-656.

Stratil, M. (n.d.) The RMS research and technical guide. Iowa City: Noel-Levitz, pp. 1-

86.

The University of Arizona Academic Policies, Retrieved from on September 14, 2005

from the World Wide Web:

http://catalog.arizona.edu/2004-05/policies/acaprog.htm#Warning

The University of Arizona Fact Book, Retrieved from on September 14, 2005 from the

World Wide Web: http://www.daps.arizona.edu/daps/factbook/students.html

The University of Arizona Strategic Retention Plan Action Item I.A.1, Retrieved

September 14, 2005 from the World Wide Web:

http://www.ulc.arizona.edu/retention/ActionPlans_Goal1_Overall.doc

Last Updated: 3/14/2006

Text Only Version Text Mostly Version Outline Version