Cabrillo College
CTEP English Placement Validation Portfolio
April 23, 2004
Planning & Research Office
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Institutional Research Analyst
Introduction & Exhibit Index
CTEP English Placement Validation Portfolio
Introduction
In Spring of 2003, Cabrillo College embarked upon a project to validate the Chancellor approved CTEP instrument for placing students into
its English course sequence: ENGL-255/290, ENGL-100, ENGL-1A. The goal was to switch over from assessing with the formerly used
English Holistic Essay commencing with the Fall 2003 assessment term. That goal was, indeed, achieved.
The CTEP instruments ultimately selected for use by the English Faculty were:
● CTEP Form A Part 1. Reading Comprehension (35 Questions)
● CTEP Form A Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar (30 Questions)
The CTEP validation and monitoring process is an ongoing one. This document showcases the content of Cabrillo's validation portfolio to
date. Portfolio items are presented in reverse order of completion so that those who have been participants in the process since its
inception will find the "freshest" cream on top.
Exhibit Description
Page
CTEP Criterion Validity
● ENGL-255/290.......................................... 2
● ENGL-100................................................. 3
● ENGL-1A................................................... 4
Success Rates
● Fall03 (CTEP) versus Fall02 (Essay).........5
Disproportionate Impact
● Fall03 (CTEP)............................................6-9
● Fall02 (Essay)........................................... 10-13
CTEP Faculty Derived Cut Scores
● Cut Scores & Multiple Measures Used...... 15
CTEP Item Level Content Validity
● CTEP Part 1.............................................. 16
● CTEP Part 2.............................................. 17
CTEP Domain Level Content Validity
● CTEP Part 1: ENGL-100........................... 18
● CTEP Part 1: ENGL-1A............................. 19
● CTEP Part 2: ENGL-100........................... 20
● CTEP Part 2: ENGL-1A............................. 21
CTEP Consequential Validity
● Student Readout....................................... 14
● Instructor Readout..................................... 14
Cabrillo College
Page 1 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Criterion Validity for English 255/290 Placements
The correlation between the 91 pairs of instructor evaluations & CTEP scores was 0.36 and, thus,
exceeds the Chancellor's minimum of 0.35
Regression equation for the best fitting
straight line through the data points.
35
Circled # next to data markers
shows number of students who
received that pair of scores.
Y = Student's Score on CTEP Parts 1 & 2
30
2
2
1
1
25
1
20
1
15
5
2
4
3
8
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
5
2
3
1
1
2
y = 2.2556x + 20.532
2
R = 0.1271
1
1
4
3
1
1
2
This analysis is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Students who placed into ENGL-255/290
● Only students who received instructor week #5 survey evaluations
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● Students who were members of the current year's graduating High School class
● Those who achieved their Placement Level without aid of Multiple Measures Points
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
X = Instructor's Evaluation of Student's Prospects for Success (1=Low, 5=High)
Cabrillo College
Page 2 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Criterion Validity for English 100 Placements
The correlation between the 63 pairs of instructor evaluations & CTEP scores was 0.34 and, thus, for
all intents and purposes meets the Chancellor's minimum of 0.35
Regression equation for the best fitting
straight line through the data points.
50
Circled # next to data markers
shows number of students who
received that pair of scores.
Y = Student's Score on CTEP Parts 1 & 2
45
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
y = 1.2122x + 38.018
2
R = 0.1132
2
2
1
3
2
1
40
2
3
2
35
3
4
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
This analysis is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Students who placed into ENGL-100
● Only students who received instructor week #5 survey evaluations
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● Students who were members of the current year's graduating High School class
● Those who achieved their Placement Level without aid of Multiple Measures Points
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
30
25
1
2
3
4
5
X = Instructor's Evaluation of Student's Prospects for Success (1=Low, 5=High)
Cabrillo College
Page 3 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Criterion Validity for English 1A Placements
The correlation between the 27 pairs of instructor evaluations & CTEP scores was 0.47 and, thus,
Regression equation for the best fitting
exceeds the Chancellor's minimum of 0.35
straight line through the data points.
60
Circled # next to data markers
shows number of students who
received that pair of scores.
y = 2.0769x + 45.949
2
R = 0.2225
1
1
Y = Student's Score on CTEP Parts 1 & 2
1
55
2
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
2
50
5
1
This analysis is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Students who placed into ENGL-1A
● Only students who received instructor week #5 survey evaluations
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● Students who were members of the current year's graduating High School class
● Those who achieved their Placement Level without aid of Multiple Measures Points
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
45
40
1
2
3
4
5
X = Instructor's Evaluation of Student's Prospects for Success (1=Low, 5=High)
Cabrillo College
Page 4 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
English Success FA03 & FA02
Placement Test Analysis
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
Graduated HS this year?
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Success Rate
#Enrolled
Total Success Rate
Total #Enrolled
Cabrillo College
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
No
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for English in the indicated term
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All students regardless of whether they graduated from High School this year
● Those who achieved their Placement Level without aid of Multiple Measures Points
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Dirterm
Placement Test
2003FA
2002FA
CTEP1&2
EngEssay
74.4%
72.1% ● ENGL-1A success rate was 2.3% HIGHER in FA03 than in FA02.
70.4%
73.0% ● ENGL-100 success rate was 2.6% LOWER in FA03 than in FA02.
65.0%
55.6% ● ENGL-255/290 success rate was 9.4% HIGHER in FA03 than in FA02.
176
86 ● Number of ENGL-1A students was 90 (105%) HIGHER in FA03.
416
437 ● Number of ENGL-100 students was 21 (5%) LOWER in FA03.
143
151 ● Number of ENGL-255/290 students was 8 (5%) LOWER in FA03.
70.3%
69.0% ● Overall success rate was 1.3% HIGHER in FA03 than in FA02.
735
674 ● Overall number of students was 61 (9%) HIGHER in FA03.
Page 5 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 03
Gender Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Gender:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Gender
CTEP1&2
Female
Male
27.6%
24.1%
52.4%
58.5%
20.0%
17.3%
102
96
194
233
74
69
100.0% 100.0%
370
398
Male
24.1%
19.3%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 24.1% = 19.3%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Group:
EEOC Gap:
Adequate sample size?
Female
No
Male
No
Ok
Ok
0
0
Page 6 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 03
Ethnicity Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Ethnicity:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Ethnicity
CTEP1&2
Af. Am. Am. Ind.
11.1%
0.0%
66.7% 100.0%
22.2%
0.0%
1
6
2
2
100.0% 100.0%
9
2
Asian
40.9%
50.0%
9.1%
9
11
2
100.0%
22
Filipino
21.1%
52.6%
26.3%
4
10
5
100.0%
19
Hispanic
8.5%
56.6%
34.9%
24
159
98
100.0%
281
Other
16.7%
58.3%
25.0%
2
7
3
100.0%
12
White
37.6%
54.6%
7.8%
155
225
32
100.0%
412
White
37.6%
30.1%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 37.6% = 30.1%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Af. Am.
Yes
EEOC Gap:
-19.0%
Adequate sample size? Under 10
Group:
5
3
Am. Ind.
Yes
-30.1%
Under 10
Asian
No
Ok
Filipino
Yes
-9.0%
Ok
Hispanic
Yes
-21.6%
Ok
Other
Yes
-13.4%
Ok
White
No
Ok
Af. Am. / Am. Ind. / Filipino / Hispanic / Other
Filipino / Hispanic / Other
Page 7 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 03
Age Group Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Age Group:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Age Group
CTEP1&2
< 18
18 - 20
30.7%
24.8%
55.9%
56.5%
13.4%
18.7%
39
142
71
323
17
107
100.0% 100.0%
127
572
21 - 25
15.8%
50.0%
34.2%
6
19
13
100.0%
38
26 - 30
36.4%
45.5%
18.2%
4
5
2
100.0%
11
31 - 40
20.0%
50.0%
30.0%
2
5
3
100.0%
10
41 - 50
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
3
3
1
100.0%
7
51 - 60
66.7%
33.3%
0.0%
2
1
100.0%
3
18 - 20
24.8%
19.9%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 24.8% = 19.9%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Group:
EEOC Gap:
Adequate sample size?
1
1
< 18
No
18 - 20
No
Ok
Ok
21 - 25
Yes
-4.1%
Ok
26 - 30
No
31 - 40
No
Ok
Ok
41 - 50
No
51 - 60
No
Under 10 Under 10
21 - 25
21 - 25
Page 8 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 03
Primary Disability Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used
CTEP1&2
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Primary Disability:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
Primary Disability
Psycholog
ical
Visually
Acquired Learning Mobility
Not
Other
Brain Injury Disabled Impaired Disabled Disability Disability Impaired
0.0%
5.6%
33.3%
26.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
66.7%
55.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
44.4%
0.0%
18.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
1
196
9
2
413
1
1
1
1
8
134
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1
18
3
743
1
1
1
Not Disabled
26.4%
21.1%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 26.4% = 21.1%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Psycholog
ical
Visually
Acquired Learning Mobility
Not
Other
Group: Brain Injury Disabled Impaired Disabled Disability Disability Impaired
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
EEOC Gap:
-21.1%
-15.5%
-21.1%
-21.1%
-21.1%
Adequate sample size? Under 10
Ok
Under 10
Ok
Under 10 Under 10 Under 10
5
1
Acquired Brain Injury / Learning Disabled / Other Disability / Psychological Disability / Visually Impaired
Learning Disabled
Page 9 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 02
Gender Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2002FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Gender:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2002 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Gender
EngEssay
Female
Male
17.2%
12.9%
65.6%
60.3%
17.2%
26.8%
64
42
244
196
64
87
100.0% 100.0%
372
325
Female
17.2%
13.8%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 17.2% = 13.8%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Group:
EEOC Gap:
Adequate sample size?
1
1
Female
No
Ok
Male
Yes
-0.8%
Ok
Male
Male
Page 10 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 02
Ethnicity Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2002FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Ethnicity:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2002 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Ethnicity
EngEssay
Af. Am. Am. Ind.
0.0%
20.0%
53.8%
60.0%
46.2%
20.0%
1
7
3
6
1
100.0% 100.0%
13
5
Asian
15.0%
65.0%
20.0%
3
13
4
100.0%
20
Filipino
7.1%
71.4%
21.4%
1
10
3
100.0%
14
Hispanic
6.1%
57.0%
36.9%
15
139
90
100.0%
244
Other
0.0%
77.8%
22.2%
7
2
100.0%
9
White
21.6%
67.5%
10.8%
82
256
41
100.0%
379
White
21.6%
17.3%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 21.6% = 17.3%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Group:
EEOC Gap:
Adequate sample size?
5
4
Af. Am.
Yes
-17.3%
Ok
Am. Ind.
No
Under 10
Asian
Yes
-2.3%
Ok
Filipino
Yes
-10.2%
Ok
Hispanic
Other
Yes
Yes
-11.2%
-17.3%
Ok
Under 10
White
No
Ok
Af. Am. / Asian / Filipino / Hispanic / Other
Af. Am. / Asian / Filipino / Hispanic
Page 11 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 02
Age Group Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
2002FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Age Group:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2002 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Age Group
EngEssay
< 18
18 - 20
14.1%
15.3%
68.7%
64.2%
17.2%
20.5%
14
81
68
339
17
108
100.0% 100.0%
99
528
21 - 25
18.2%
47.7%
34.1%
8
21
15
100.0%
44
26 - 30
6.7%
46.7%
46.7%
1
7
7
100.0%
15
31 - 40
0.0%
25.0%
75.0%
1
3
100.0%
4
41 - 50
33.3%
50.0%
16.7%
2
3
1
100.0%
6
51 - 60
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
1
100.0%
1
18 - 20
15.3%
12.3%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 15.3% = 12.3%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Group:
EEOC Gap:
Adequate sample size?
3
1
< 18
No
18 - 20
No
21 - 25
No
Ok
Ok
Ok
26 - 30
Yes
-5.6%
Ok
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
Yes
No
Yes
-12.3%
-12.3%
Under 10 Under 10 Under 10
26 - 30 / 31 - 40 / 51 - 60
26 - 30
Page 12 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Disproportionate Impact ENGL 02
Primary Disability Analysis
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
2002FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2002 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
Test Used Primary Disability
EngEssay
Data
Placement Percent
Student Count
Course Placement
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-1A
ENGL-100
ENGL-255/290
Total Placement Percent
Total Student Count
Majority Primary Disability:
Majority group ENGL-1A placement rate:
EEOC 80% Guideline:
Psycholog
ical
Visually
Acquired
Hearing Learning Mobility Not
Other
Brain Injury Impaired Disabled Impaired Disabled Disability Disability Impaired
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
15.8%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
28.0%
40.0%
64.6%
100.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
68.0%
60.0%
19.6%
0.0%
33.3% 100.0%
1
104
1
1
1
7
2
425
3
1
17
3
129
1
1
100.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
1
1
25
5
658
3
3
1
Not Disabled
15.8%
12.6%
Per EEOC guidelines, any group that falls below 80% of the majority group's ENGL-1A placement rate (here 80% of 15.8% = 12.6%) has been disproportionately impacted.
Disproportionate
Impact?
[Note: groups of fewer than 10 are inadequate for analysis.]
# Groups Impacted:
# Groups Impacted with Ok sample size:
Cabrillo College
Psycholog
ical
Visually
Acquired Hearing Learning Mobility
Not
Other
Group: Brain Injury Impaired Disabled Impaired Disabled Disability Disability Impaired
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
EEOC Gap:
-12.6%
-12.6%
-8.6%
-12.6%
-12.6%
-12.6%
Adequate sample size? Under 10 Under 10
Ok
Under 10
Ok
Under 10 Under 10 Under 10
6
1
Acquired Brain Injury / Hearing Impaired / Learning Disabled / Mobility Impaired / Other Disability / Visually Impaired
Learning Disabled
Page 13 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
Consequential Validity ENGL 03
Student Ratings of their Preparedness for the class.
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
● All students with personal and/or instructor week #5 survey evaluations
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Who completed survey?
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
(All)
Student evaluation of own preparedness for course
I am Overqualified
I am Qualified ("just barely" to "fully")
I am Not Qualified
Grand Total
Test Used
Data
Course Placement
CTEP1&2
Percentages
Student Counts
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-100
ENGL-1A ENGL-255/290
5.9%
8.3%
6.1%
6
92.1%
90.3%
93.9%
93
2.0%
1.4%
0.0%
2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
101
ENGL-100 ENGL-1A
6
2
65
31
1
72
33
● The Chancellor's threshold for an acceptable response is that at least 75% should feel qualified to be in the course in which they were placed.
● That 75% standard is exceeded at all levels of the placement sequence.
Instructor Ratings of Prospects for Success in the class.
The analysis below is limited to only those students who met the following profile:
● Assessed for the Fall 2003 term
● Assessed for English in the above term(s)
● Enrolled that term in a Departmental course consistent with their Placement Level
● Enrollment status for the above term(s) was "1st Time Any College"
● Highest level of education they had attained was a High School Diploma
● All assessees regardless of whether Multiple Measures Points upgraded their Placement Level
● All assessees regardless of their answer to the CAPP/ASAP primary language question (Q3)
● All students with personal and/or instructor week #5 survey evaluations
Dirterm
Dept
Enrolled as Placed?
Enroll Status
Highest Education
ENGL MM Upgrade?
ASAP Q3 Is English your first (primary) language?
Who completed survey?
2003FA
ENGL
Yes
1st Time Any College
HS Grad
(All)
(All)
(All)
Instructor evaluation of students' ability
Moderate Ability or Greater (will pass)
Weak Ability or Less (may/will not pass)
Grand Total
Test Used
Data
Course Placement
CTEP1&2
Percentages
Student Counts
ENGL-255/290
ENGL-100
ENGL-1A ENGL-255/290
80.8%
76.7%
95.5%
97
19.2%
23.3%
4.5%
23
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
120
ENGL-100 ENGL-1A
66
42
20
2
86
44
● The Chancellor's threshold for an acceptable response is that at least 75% should be rated as having ability sufficient for success in the course.
● That 75% standard is exceeded at all levels of the placement sequence.
Cabrillo College
Page 14 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
English CTEP Cut Scores
CABRILLO COLLEGE
English Test Project:
English Test Project:
CTEP Form A Part 1. Reading Comprehension (35 Questions)
CTEP Form A Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar (30 Questions)
(Note: Although Form A Part 3 was also evaluated, the faculty elected not employ it for English placements.)
FACULTY DERIVED CUT SCORES for the above two tests combined (65 Questions)
Faculty
Reviewer
Rater#1 (Parts 1 & 2)
Rater#2 (Parts 1 & 2)
Rater#3 (Parts 1 & 2)
Rater#4 (Part 1)
Rater#5 (Part2)
Average Raw
Faculty-derived
cut
English 290/255
English 100
26.40
27.55
32.45
English 1A
45.25
45.15
46.10
24.55
40.85
2.08
27.74
44.34
Remaining Items
62.92
37.26
20.66
Remaining Items
Right By Chance*
15.73
9.32
5.17
Average Corrected
Faculty-derived
cut
17.81
37.05
49.50
Rounded Cut
18
37
50
Cut Ranges**
Selected after
reviewing above data
on 02-06-2003
00-34†
35-49
50-69
2.08
Present at the 2-6-03 review meeting were: W.Baer, G.Donatelli-Sardo, D.Putnam, R.Borden
* Note: Since each test question offers four alternative answers, a student who randomly selected answers to
test questions would be expected to get roughly every fourth question correct by chance. This in turn implies
that students who guessed their answers to all 65 questions would get an average of 65 ÷ 4 = 16.25 (roughly 16)
test items correct by chance.
** Criterion Score includes:
● a total of 65 possible CTEP Part 1 + Part 2 points;
● plus, a total of 4 possible multiple measures (MM) points
•► 1MM point if: CAPP Q9= "More than 10 years" out of school
•► 1MM point if: CAPP Q11= "A" was grade received in last English class
•► 1MM point if: CAPP Q12= "B to A-" OR "A- to A" was high school GPA
•► 1MM point if: CAPP Q18= "Less than 6 units" were planned for next term
† Those scoring in the 00-17 range receive the following placement/comment:
"English 255 or 290 with Reading and Lab corequisites; we recommend
that you also enroll in Adult Education courses or ESL courses"
Cabrillo College
Page 15 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
ENGL Item Review CTEP1
CABRILLO COLLEGE
CTEP Part 1. Reading Comprehension
English Content Review:
Summary of Average Item Ratings
Instructions: Please rate each item’s importance for each English course using the scale below.
How important is the academic knowledge or skill measured by this item for
successful acquisition of the skills taught in this course?
5. Critically Important
4. Important
3. Moderately Important
2. Of Slight Importance
1. Not Relevant
Test Item
Number
# of Raters*:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
English
290/255
N=2
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
English 100
N=4
3.8
3.3
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.5
3.3
4.0
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.0
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
English 1A
N=4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.8
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.8
4.0
4.0
4.8
3.8
4.3
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.3
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.3
3.5
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.3
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.5
4.0
*Raters were: R1, R2, R3 and R4
Average Rating
1.9
3.3
4.2
#Items 4.0 or higher
#Items 3.0-3.9
#Items 2.0-2.9
#Items below 2.0
0
0
21
14
1
31
3
0
29
6
0
0
Cabrillo College
Page 16 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D,
ENGL Item Review CTEP2
CABRILLO COLLEGE
CTEP Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar
English Content Review:
Summary of Average Item Ratings
Instructions: Please rate each item’s importance for each English course using the scale below.
How important is the academic knowledge or skill measured by this item for
successful acquisition of the skills taught in this course?
5. Critically Important
4. Important
3. Moderately Important
2. Of Slight Importance
1. Not Relevant
Test Item
Number
# of Raters*:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
English
290/255
N=1
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
English 100
N=4
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.3
2.8
3.0
2.5
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
English 1A
N=4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.3
3.8
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
*Raters were: R1, R2, R3 and R5
Average Rating
3.1
2.9
4.1
#Items 4.0 or higher
#Items 3.0-3.9
#Items 2.0-2.9
#Items below 2.0
7
18
5
0
0
20
10
0
28
2
0
0
Cabrillo College
Page 17 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
ENGL-100 Domain Review CTEP1
*Percentage of raters who indicated that the
course pre-skill was measured by at least one
of the CTEP Reading Comp. domains.
CABRILLO COLLEGE English Content Review:
CTEP Part 1. Reading Comprehension
Summary: English 100 Pre-Skills Match to Test Domains
CTEP Part 1. Reading Comprehension Domains
English 100 Pre-skills
Based Upon
Main Idea
English 290/255
Course Content
# of Raters
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Æ
Æ
1. Learn to address a topic clearly.
2. Develop ideas using detail and evidence.
3. Write unified paragraphs.
4. Begin to vary sentence structure
5. Begin to identify and correct mechanical errors, including errors in
punctuation, sentence structure, verb tense, pronoun and subject-verb
agreement, and spelling
6. Begin to eliminate frequent errors in idiomatic usage
7. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
Literal Comp.
Inferential
Comp.
Interp./Eval
Compreh.
Vocabulary in
Context
Check mark any CTEP domain(s) that, in your professional opinion,
measure the numbered pre-skill.
100%
100%
50%
50%
%*
50%
100%
100% not
50%
75%
50%
100% not
75%
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
75%
75%
4
8. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
75% not
50%
75% not
75% not
50%
75%
4
9. Show improvement in reading comprehension by learning to identify an
author's main ideas and purpose and through vocabulary development.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Interpretation:
100% - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
Cabrillo College
50% - two raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% not - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
100% not - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
Page 18 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
ENGL-1A Domain Review CTEP1
*Percentage of raters who indicated that the
course pre-skill was measured by at least
one of the CTEP Reading Comp. domains.
CABRILLO COLLEGE English Content Review:
CTEP Part 1. Reading Comprehension
Summary: English 1A Pre-Skills Match to Test Domains
CTEP Part 1. Reading Comprehension Domains
English 1A Pre-skills
Based Upon
Main Idea
English 100
Course Content
# of Raters
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Æ
Interp./Eval
Compreh.
Vocabulary in
Context
Check mark any CTEP domain(s) that, in your professional opinion,
measure the numbered pre-skill.
Æ
1. Learn to address a topic clearly.
2. Develop ideas using detail and evidence.
3. Write unified paragraphs.
4. Begin to vary sentence structure
100%
5. Begin to identify and correct mechanical errors, including errors in
punctuation, sentence structure, verb tense, pronoun and subject-verb
agreement, and spelling
6. Begin to eliminate frequent errors in idiomatic usage
7. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
100%
50%
50%
%*
50%
100%
75%
100% not
50%
75%
50%
75% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
75%
75%
4
8. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
75% not
75% not
75% not
100% not
75% not
50%
4
9. Show improvement in reading comprehension by learning to identify an
author's main ideas and purpose and through vocabulary development.
100%
100%
75%
75%
75%
100%
4
10. Learn to focus on a topic.
75%
75%
50%
75% not
75% not
75%
4
11. Learn more sophisticated strategies to develop an essay, using a variety of
narrative and expository techniques.
75% not
50%
50%
50%
100% not
50%
4
12. Learn to unify paragraphs and make clear transitions between them.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
4
13. Learn to vary sentence length and establish connections among ideas,
including the use of coordination and subordination.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
4
14. Learn to write essays free of most distracting errors in syntax and
mechanics.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
4
15. Learn the importance of their writing of voice, tone, and careful diction in
addressing an audience; in their reading, become aware of tone, implication,
inference, and irony, and learn to distinguish fact from opinion.
100% not
50%
50%
100%
75% not
100%
4
16. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
75%
75%
4
17. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
75% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
50%
4
18. Learn to devise effective introductions and conclusions
75% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
25%
4
19. Learn to read actively by annotating, paraphrasing, and summarizing; learn
to analyze and evaluate the ideas of other writers.
100%
75%
75%
75%
75% not
100%
4
20. Learn to examine texts carefully to identify main points and the writer's
point of view; see the connections between individual parts and the whole.
100%
75%
100%
75%
100% not
100%
4
21. Learn to develop well-organized responses to readings and answers to
questions in essay exams, drawing reasonable conclusions and using specific
evidence to support main points.
75%
75%
50%
50%
100% not
100%
Interpretation:
100% - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
Cabrillo College
Literal Comp. Inferential
Comp.
50% - two raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% not - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
100% not - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
Page 19 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
ENGL-100 Domain Review CTEP2
*Percentage of raters who indicated that the course
pre-skill was measured by at least one of the CTEP
Sent. Struct. & Grammar domains.
CABRILLO COLLEGE English Content Review:
CTEP Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar
Summary: English 100 Pre-Skills Match to Test Domains
CTEP Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar Domains
English 100 Pre-skills
Based Upon
Sentence Verb Errors Pronoun Parallelism Modifier Wordiness Semantic Punctuation
Errors
Errors
Errors
Errors Errors
Errors
Errors
English 290/255
Course Content
# of Raters
4
Æ
Check mark any CTEP domain(s) that, in your professional opinion, measure the
numbered pre-skill.
Æ
1. Learn to address a topic clearly.
2. Develop ideas using detail and evidence.
3. Write unified paragraphs.
4. Begin to vary sentence structure
%*
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
50%
75% not
50%
75% not
50%
75%
50%
75%
75%
75%
50%
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
75%
50%
75%
100%
100%
100% not
100% not
100% not
75% not
75% not
100% not
75%
100% not
100%
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
4
8. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
50%
75%
75%
75%
4
9. Show improvement in reading comprehension by learning to identify an
author's main ideas and purpose and through vocabulary development.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
50%
100% not
50%
4
4
4
4
4
4
5. Begin to identify and correct mechanical errors, including errors in
punctuation, sentence structure, verb tense, pronoun and subject-verb
agreement, and spelling
6. Begin to eliminate frequent errors in idiomatic usage
7. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
Interpretation:
100% - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
Cabrillo College
50% - two raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% not - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
100% not - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
Page 20 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.
◄◄◄
ENGL-1A Domain Review CTEP2
*Percentage of raters who indicated that the
course pre-skill was measured by at least one of
the CTEP Sent. Struct. & Grammar domains.
CABRILLO COLLEGE English Content Review:
CTEP Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar
Summary: English 1A Pre-Skills Match to Test Domains
CTEP Part 2. Sentence Structure & Grammar Domains
English 1A Pre-skills
Based Upon
Sentence Verb Errors Pronoun Parallelism Modifier Wordiness Semantic Punctuation
Errors
Errors
Errors
Errors Errors
Errors
Errors
English 100
Course Content
# of Raters
4
Æ
Check mark any CTEP domain(s) that, in your professional opinion, measure the
numbered pre-skill.
Æ
1. Learn to address a topic clearly.
2. Develop ideas using detail and evidence.
3. Write unified paragraphs.
4. Begin to vary sentence structure
%*
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
◄◄◄
100% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
50%
75% not
50%
75% not
50%
75%
50%
75%
75%
75%
50%
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
50%
50%
50%
75%
100%
100% not
100% not
100% not
75% not
75% not
100% not
75%
100% not
100%
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
4
8. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
100%
75%
75%
100%
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
4
9. Show improvement in reading comprehension by learning to identify an
author's main ideas and purpose and through vocabulary development.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
50%
100% not
50%
4
10. Learn to focus on a topic.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
4
11. Learn more sophisticated strategies to develop an essay, using a variety of
narrative and expository techniques.
75% not
100% not
75% not
75% not
100% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
50%
4
12. Learn to unify paragraphs and make clear transitions between them.
100% not
100% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
75% not
75%
100% not
75%
4
13. Learn to vary sentence length and establish connections among ideas,
including the use of coordination and subordination.
100%
75%
50%
100%
75%
50%
75%
100%
100%
4
14. Learn to write essays free of most distracting errors in syntax and
mechanics.
100%
75%
75%
75%
75%
50%
100%
100%
100%
4
15. Learn the importance of their writing of voice, tone, and careful diction in
addressing an audience; in their reading, become aware of tone, implication,
inference, and irony, and learn to distinguish fact from opinion.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
75% not
50%
100% not
50%
4
16. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
50%
100% not
50%
4
17. Learn to write essays with clear ideas supported by some evidence, a
coherent sequence of paragraphs, competent control of language, and no
pervasive pattern of errors
75%
75%
75%
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
4
18. Learn to devise effective introductions and conclusions
75% not
75% not
75% not
100% not
75% not
50%
75%
75% not
75%
4
19. Learn to read actively by annotating, paraphrasing, and summarizing; learn
to analyze and evaluate the ideas of other writers.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
75% not
100% not
25%
4
20. Learn to examine texts carefully to identify main points and the writer's
point of view; see the connections between individual parts and the whole.
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
0%
4
21. Learn to develop well-organized responses to readings and answers to
questions in essay exams, drawing reasonable conclusions and using specific
evidence to support main points.
75% not
100% not
100% not
75% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
100% not
25%
4
4
4
4
4
4
5. Begin to identify and correct mechanical errors, including errors in
punctuation, sentence structure, verb tense, pronoun and subject-verb
agreement, and spelling
6. Begin to eliminate frequent errors in idiomatic usage
7. Learn to use the dictionary to enlarge vocabulary and improve spelling
Interpretation:
100% - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
Cabrillo College
◄◄◄
◄◄◄
◄◄◄
50% - two raters agreed that the pre-skill was measured by the domain
75% not - three raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
100% not - all four raters agreed that the pre-skill was not measured by the domain
Page 21 of 21
Planning & Research Office: 4/23/2004
Richard C. Borden, Ph.D.