Cited by 267Career Development and DiversityHigher Education Research StudiesCritical Race Theory in Education

Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project

Hurtado, Sylvia, Newman, Christopher B., Tran, Minh C., Chang, Mitchell J.·2010·New Directions for Institutional Research

Abstract

In this chapter, we summarize findings and offer implications from the first phase of a national longitudinal study of undergraduate STEM majors conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ir.357

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
New Directions for Institutional Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12
Volume
2010
Issue
148
Pages
5-15
ISSN
  • 0271-0579 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-075X
OpenAlex
W2094536449
Cited by
267
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
New Directions for Institutional Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
Keywords
STEM education, student retention, academic performance, longitudinal study, higher education equity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review