Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 305–319 | Cite as

Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores: Implications for Research

  • James S. Cole
  • Robert M. Gonyea
Article

Abstract

Because it is often impractical or impossible to obtain school transcripts or records on subjects, many researchers rely on college students to accurately self-report their academic record as part of their data collection procedures. The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity and reliability of student self-reported academic performance. As expected the study finds overall validity of self-reported test scores to be high. However, correlations between self-reported and actual SAT scores are significantly lower than correlations for self-reported and actual ACT Composite scores. This study also confirms prior research which found that when students are inaccurate in reporting their scores, a disproportionate number of them over-report their scores. Also consistent with other studies, this study finds that lower achieving students for both tests are much less accurate when reporting their scores.

Keywords

Self-report accuracy Cognitive distortion Motivated distortion Higher education research SAT/ACT test scores 

References

  1. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Anaya, G. (1999). Accuracy of self-reported test scores. College & University, Fall, 13–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., & Berger, S. A. (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory for high school grades. Psychological Science, 7, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beretvas, S., Natasha, Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 570–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braxton, J. M., Brier, E. M., & Hossler, D. (1988). The influence of student problems on student withdrawal decisions: An autopsy on “autopsy” studies. Research in Higher Education, 28, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabrera, A. F., Stampen, J. O., & Hansen, W. L. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on persistence in college. The Review of Higher Education, 13, 303–336.Google Scholar
  7. Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 7. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12.
  8. Cohen, B. H. (2001). Explaining psychological statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. College Board. (2008). SAT-ACT concordance tables. Retrieved Aug 15, 2008, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Dobbins, G. H., Farh, J., & Werbel, J. D. (1993). The influence of self-monitoring on inflation of grade-point averages for research and selection purposes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frucot, V. G., & Cook, G. L. (1994). Further research on the accuracy of students’ self-reported grade point averages, SAT scores, and course grades. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 743–746.Google Scholar
  13. Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. In R. K. Toutkoushian & P. D. Umbach (Eds.), Survey research: emerging issues: Vol. 127. New directions for institutional research series (pp. 73–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Gramzow, R. H., & Williard, G. (2006). Exaggerating current and past performance: Motivated self-enhancement versus reconstructive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1114–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herman, W. E. (2003, August). College student awareness of current G.P.A. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American psychological association, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  16. Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A. T., Campbell, J., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2007). Overestimation bias in self-reported SAT scores. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nancarrow, C., & Brace, I. (2000). Saying the “right thing:” coping with social desirability bias in marketing research. Bristol business school teaching and research review, Summer, 3.Google Scholar
  19. Pearson, R. W., Ross, M., & Dawes, R. M. (1994). Personal recall and the limits of retrospective questions in surveys. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 65–94). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Student derogation of the scholastic aptitude test: Biases in perceptions and presentations of College Board scores. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Takalkar, P., Waugh, G., & Micceri, T. (1993, May). A search for truth in student responses to selected survey items. Paper presented at the AIR annual forum, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  24. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Williard, G., & Gramzow, R. H. (2008). Exaggeration in memory: Systematic distortion of self-evaluative information under reduced accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Postsecondary ResearchIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations