Differential Prediction in the Use of the SAT and High School Grades in Predicting College Performance: Joint Effects of Race and Language
Abstract
The literature on differential prediction of college performance of racial/ethnic minority students for standardized tests and high school grades indicates the use of these predictors often results in overprediction of minority student performance. However, these studies typically involve native English‐speaking students. In contrast, a smaller literature on language proficiency suggests academic performance of those with more limited English language proficiency may be underpredicted by standardized tests. These two literatures have not been well integrated, despite the fact that a number of racial/ethnic minority groups within the United States contain recent immigrant populations or heritage language speakers. This study investigates the joint role of race/ethnicity and language proficiency in Hispanic, Asian, and White ethnic groups across three educational admissions systems (SAT, HSGPA, and their composite) in predicting freshman grades. Our results indicate that language may differentially affect academic outcomes for different racial/ethnic subgroups. The SAT loses predictive power for Asian and White students who speak another best language, whereas it does not for Hispanic students who speak another best language. The differential prediction of college grades of linguistic minorities within racial/ethnic minority subgroups appears to be driven by the verbally loaded subtests of standardized tests but is largely unrelated to quantitative tests.
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?
Some prior work demonstrates the utility of considering multiple social dimensions together when assessing bias.
“Some prior work demonstrates the utility of considering multiple social dimensions together when assessing bias (e.g., Shewach et al., 2017).”
From An Omitted Variables Approach to Disentangling Differential Prediction in College Admissions (2026) · cites this paper as Shewach et al., 2017
Cites
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162 · Cited by 639 · see citing works
Self-citation
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Shewach, O. R., Shen, W., Sackett, P. R., & Kuncel, N. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Shewach, Oren R.
- Shen, Winny
- Sackett, Paul R.
- Kuncel, Nathan R.
- Venue
- Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-05-18
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 46-57
- ISSN
- 0731-1745 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-3992
- OpenAlex
- W2615786270
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Measurement Issues and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- The College Board
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Keywords
- differential prediction, SAT, high school grades, university performance, race and ethnicity, language proficiency, Hispanic students, Asian students, white students, verbal subtests, university admission, heritage speakers, immigrant students
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