The DOI matches its Crossref record.
UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California
Abstract
The debate over "aptitude" versus "achievement" tests in college admissions is an old one. Aptitude-type tests, exemplified by the SAT I, are intended to assess students' capacity for future learning, whereas achievement-type tests, exemplified by the SAT II subject tests, are designed to assess students' current mastery of college-preparatory subjects. As one of the few institutions in the nation that requires both the SAT I and SAT II, the University of California (UC) has an extensive database with which to assess their relative utility in predicting student success in college. This study examines the relationship between SAT scores and freshman grades based on the records of 77,893 students who entered UC between Fall 1996 and Fall 1999. The study found that (a) the SAT II achievement tests are consistently better predictors of student success at UC than the SAT I, although the incremental gain in prediction is relatively modest and there is substantial redundancy across the tests; (b) the predictive validity of the SAT II appears to be less conditioned by socioeconomic factors than is the SAT I; and (c) racial/ethnic group performance is substantially similar across the SAT I and SAT II. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, these findings suggest that the benefits of achievement tests for college admissions-greater clarity in admissions standards, closer linkage to the high-school curriculum - can be realized without any sacrifice in the capacity to predict success in college.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gender and Competition at a Young Age
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828041301821 · Cited by 756
Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression
Wilson, M. (2009) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20318 · Cited by 329
Mullen, A. L., Goyette, K. A., & Soares, J. A. (2003) · Sociology of Education · doi:10.2307/3090274 · Cited by 299
Understanding Affirmative Action
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029 · Cited by 294
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.63.4.215 · Cited by 233
Metadata
- Authors
- Geiser, S., & Studley, W. R.
- Venue
- Educational Assessment
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 1062-7197 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6977
- OpenAlex
- W2106716958
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326977ea0801_01
- The paper
- Geiser, S., & Studley, W. R. (2002). UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0801_01
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.