Abstract
Every year, more than 300,000 high school graduates take the admission test for public universities in Peru, but barely two out of every ten are accepted. This study examines the predictive validity of admission tests at a Peruvian university and considers their associated equity issues. Using a sample of pre-existing data from two selection processes in 2008 (N = 3762) and 2018 (N = 3768), the preset study analyzed the regression coefficients and the correlations of the predictors with the first-year grade point average (FYGPA). In both admission exams, the test score was not a predictor of performance in the FYGPA, explaining between 0 and 2.2% of the performance variance (p values = 0.886 and 0.001, respectively), and also showing values in the very weak category in the correlation analysis (0.014 and 0.137; p = 0.338 and 0.001). In contrast, high school grades were a better predictor, explaining 12.9% of the variance of academic performance. Significant inequalities were highlighted in the test scores based on the candidates' school type. Additionally, differential prediction was also found only in the 2008 test, favoring private school pupils. Furthermore, over 80% of the items in the 2018 test fell into the category of low discrimination. This study provides empirical proof of the almost non-existent predictability of tests constructed by non-experts and compelling evidence in support of the use of standardized exams, which guarantee sufficient levels of predictability as well as minimize access bias.
Author Information
Oscar Silva Rojas, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress