Why Do Achievement Measures Underpredict Female Academic Performance?
Abstract
In the context of college admissions, the current study examined whether differential prediction of first‐year grade point average (FYGPA) by gender could be explained by an omitted variable problem—namely, academic discipline, or the amount of effort a student puts into schoolwork and the degree to which a student sees him/herself as hardworking and conscientious. Based on nearly 10,000 college students, the current study found that differences in intercepts by gender were reduced by 45% with the inclusion of academic discipline in a model that already included high school grade point average (HSGPA) and ACT Composite score. Moreover, academic discipline resulted in an additional 4% of variance accounted for in FYGPA. Gender differences in slopes were not statistically significant (p > .001) regardless if academic discipline was included in the model. The findings highlight the utility of taking a more holistic approach when making college admission decisions. Namely, the inclusion of noncognitive measures has benefits that are twofold: increased predictive validity and reduced differential prediction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Gender-based underprediction has been partly accounted for by Conscientiousness, study habits, and course-grading differences.
“Applying this approach, gender-based underprediction has been partly accounted for by Conscientiousness, study habits, and course-grading differences (Keiser et al., 2016;Mattern et al., 2017;Zhou et al., 2022).”
From An Omitted Variables Approach to Disentangling Differential Prediction in College Admissions (2026) · cites this paper as Mattern et al., 2017
Cites
A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance.
Poropat, A. E. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014996 · Cited by 2,729 · see citing works
Do Psychosocial and Study Skill Factors Predict College Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261 · Cited by 2,479 · see citing works
Differential Prediction and the Use of Multiple Predictors: The Omitted Variables Problem.
Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R. M., & Lippe, Z. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1046 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Omitted Variables Approach to Disentangling Differential Prediction in College Admissions
Demeke, S., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Lee, S. D. (2026) · Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice · doi:10.1111/emip.70048
- Authors
- Mattern, K., Sanchez, E., & Ndum, E.
- Affiliations
- ACT Inc.
- Corresponding author
- Mattern, Krista
- Sanchez, Edgar
- Ndum, Edwin
- ORCID
- Mattern, Krista
- Venue
- Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-01-25
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-57
- ISSN
- 0731-1745 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3992
- OpenAlex
- W2581846226
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 11.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Measurement Issues and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Outcomes and Influences
- Keywords
- gender differences in academic performance, first-year grade point average, university admission, academic disciplines, conscientiousness, high school grade point average, ACT composite score, predictive validity
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