Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “magic” of mean gain

  • AIR Forum Issue
  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American College Testing Program (1973).Highlights of the ACT Technical Report. Iowa City, IA: Author.

  • Baird, Leonard L. (1988). Value-added. Using student gains as yardsticks of learning. In Clifford Adelman (ed.),Performance and Judgment: Essays on Principles and Practice in the Assessment of College Student Learning (pp. 205–216). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Leigh (1980). The analysis of multi-level data in educational research and evaluation. In David C. Berliner (ed.),Review of Research in Education (vol. 8, pp. 158–233). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Linda M. (1991). Analyzing and understanding patterns of change: Where are we headed? Presentation at the annual meeting of the AAHE Assessment Forum, San Francisco.

  • Cronbach, Lee J. Gleser, Goldine C., Nanda, Harinder, and Rajaratnam, Nageswari (1972).The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, Aubrey, and Steele, Joe M. (1982).Defining and Measuring General Education Knowledge and Skills. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, Michael T., and Brennan, Robert L. (1977). The generalizability of class means.Review of Educational Research 47: 267–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, Frederic M. (1956). The measurement of growth.Educational and Psychological Measurement 16: 421–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, Gary R. (1991). Using structural equation models with latent variables to study student growth and development.Research in Higher Education 32: 499–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, Gary R. (1992a). Lies, damn lies, and statistics revisited: A comparison of three methods of representing change.Research in Higher Education 33: 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, Gary R. (1992b). Using mixed-effect structural equation models to study student academic development.Review of Higher Education 15: 151–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, Joe M. (1988). Using measures of student outcomes and growth to improve college programs. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Phoenix.

  • Steele, Joe M. (1989). A generalizability analysis of the COMP Objective Test (Form 9). Unpublished manuscript, American College Testing Program, Iowa City, IA.

  • Thorndike, Robert L. (1966). Intellectual status and intellectual growth.Journal of Educational Psychology 57: 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, Donald B. (1991). Assessing cognitive general education outcomes: Conclusions from a decade of research on the ACT COMP measures. Unpublished manuscript, American College Testing Program, Iowa City, IA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gary R. Pike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pike, G.R. The “magic” of mean gain. Res High Educ 34, 131–134 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991868

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991868

Keywords

Search

Navigation