TECHNICAL APPENDIX D

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS AND TECHNIQUE

Environmental Assessment Instruments--An Aid for Campus Administrator

Lou Ann Keating

Improving Mental Health Services on Western Campuses
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
November 1974

Each of these instruments may prove helpful in assessment of campus environments. However, the experience of this program indicates that often it is necessary for campus personnel to design one or more of their own instruments in order to (1) obtain information specific to their campus, and (2) obtain information in a form which can be used in an environmental redesign process.

College and University Environment Scales (CUES), Second Edition

Author: C. Robert Pace

Publisher: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Date: Copyright 1962, 1969

Cost: Specimen Set, $3.00
Technical Manual, $2.50
Booklets (reusable), $.35 each
Answer Sheets, $.05 each
Computer Printout Service, $.80 per answer sheet, scored
Combined Scoring Service, $1.00 per answer sheet, scored
$100 minimum charge for scoring the answer sheets included in one computer printout

Purpose: To aid in defining the atmosphere or intellectual-social-cultural climate of a college as students see it

Environment(s) Assessed: Total university

Target Population(s): Students who have been in attendance at least three semesters

Norm Group(s): 100 4-year institutions stratified according to geographic area, levels of program (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.), public versus private control, and proportionate to a national distribution of enrollments and institutions

Format: Student is asked to say whether each of 100 basic and 60 experimental statements is generally true or false with reference to his/her college. The 100 basic items form 5 scales of 20 items each. In addition, 2 special subscales have been created using items from the 5 basic scales: Campus Morale, and Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationships. The 5 major dimensions assessed are the student's views of the Practicality, sense of Community, Awareness, Priority, and Scholarship and/of their particular campus.

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 30 minutes

Scoring: Key provided in the test manual, but hand scoring not practical. Computer printout with information regarding item, scale, and subscale responses or combined service (printout plus data cards) available from ETS (see Cost).

Interpretation: Internal focus on individual items or subscales within an institution or comparison of college or university's scores on items or scales with similar institutions across the country:

Comparison of "real" and "ideal" responses to same items

Identification of disparities in stated institutional objectives and student perceptions of the environment

Statistics: Reliability estimates for subscales based on Cronbach coefficient alpha range from .89 to .94 CUES scores were correlated with various characteristics of students and institutions as represented by mean SAT-Verbal scores of entering freshmen and Astin's Intellectuality factor, among several others. The test manual provides detailed summaries.

Author: Richard E. Peterson

Publisher: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Cost: Speciman Set, $3.00
CSQ Part I booklets (reusable), $.35 each
CSQ Part II booklets (reusable), $.35 each
CSQ Part I answer sheets, $.05 each
CSQ Part II answer sheets, $.05 each
CTAA booklets, $.15 each
Computer printout service (39-page report), $1.00 per answer sheet, scored
IBM Data Card Service (four cards per answer sheet, scored), $1.00 per answer sheet, scored
Combined Scoring Service (printout plus data cards), $1.00 per answer sheet, scored Minimum $50.00 charge for each group of answer sheets, scored

Environment(s) Assessed: Attitudinal and biographical information about various student groups

Target Population(s): CSQ I: entering freshmen and transfer students
CSQ II: enrolled undergraduates

Norm Group(s): Information on norm groups available on printouts or by writing Educational Testing Service

Format: The student is asked to respond to 200 multiple-choice questions with the typical item having four possible responses.

Form CSQ I: for entering freshmen and transfer students is divided into 4 basic sections (Educational and Vocational Plans, Secondary School Information, Family Background, and Attitudes). Items are organized into 7 subscales, which with the exception of the Family Social Status scale, are composed of 10 items each (family independence, peer independence, liberalism, social conscience, cultural sophistication, motivation for grades, and family social status).

Form CSQ II: for enrolled undergraduates is divided into 3 basic sections (Educational and Vocational Plans, College Activities, and Attitudes) and 11 subscales composed of 10 items each (family independence, peer independence, liberalism, social conscience, cultural sophistication, satisfaction with faculty, satisfaction with administration, satisfaction with major, satisfaction with students, study habits, and extracurricular involvement.

CTAA: Control Test for Academic Aptitude is composed of 30 multiple-choice items (18 verbal and 12 mathematical) and was developed as an optional addition to either CSQ I or CSQ II to provide data for researchers who may wish to compare CSQ variables with a measure of academic aptitude.

Administration: Group administration Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 90 minutes (includes time to review directions, grid ID information, respond to optional local items, etc.) CTAA is time limited to 12 minutes.

Scoring: (see Cost)

Interpretation: Purpose of the CSQ is to describe groups of students in the manner of survey research and public opinion polling. Results can be considered both from the standpoint of scale scores and individual items. CSQ may be utilized to describe student subgroups or in studies of student change, institutional impact, student satisfaction, etc.

Statistics: Internal consistency reliabilities for subscales range from .62 to .84 (1963 sampling) to .57 to .75 (1965 sampling) Construct validity was checked by correlating scores on a given scale with some 47 other biographical and attitudinal characteristics and by comparing mean scores for selected subgroups of students and institutions. Detailed summaries are in the test manual.

Author: Harry Gottesfeld

Publisher: Behavioral Publications, Inc.
72 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10011

Date: Copyright 1974

Cost:

Purpose: To determine an individual or a group's standing on six major issues in the community mental health field

Environment(s) Assessed: Community mental health agencies

Target Population(s): Community mental health professionals (nurse, psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist) and paraprofessionals

Norm Group(s): 200 staff members of mental health agencies in the New York metropolitan area

Format: The mental health worker is asked to respond to 72 statements relating to community mental health on a 6 point scale ("strongly agree," "moderately agree," "slightly agree," "slightly disagree," "moderately disagree," or "strongly disagree") and to 7 questions designed to gather information about the respondent's age, ethnic background, occupation, etc. There are 6 critical issues composed of 12 items each.

The 6 dimensions assessed are: (1) Community Context, work directly in the community, not from an institutional base; (2) Radicalism, rapid, drastic changes in community mental health centers needed; (3) Traditional Psychotherapy, model after private practice; (4) Prevention, approaches emphasizing crisis intervention, identification of incipient problems, and consultation with social agencies; (5) Extending the Definition of Mental Health, extending diagnosis and treatment of traditional diagnostic categories such as neurosis and psychosis to new areas for study and change such as racial discrimination, violence, and educational achievement; (6) Role Diffusion, professionals perform varied functions, and important mental health activities are carried out by people not in the mental health field.

Administration: Paper and pencil attitude scale

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 15 minutes

Scoring: Key provided in the test manual for hand scoring; electronic data processing for scoring the test and applying statistical tests available from Behavioral Publications

Interpretation: Dependent on nature of sample group and current issues in locale or institution

Development: Content developed from random sampling of statements in community mental health literature in 1967, 1968, 1969

Criterion measure established by comparing scores on the test with ratings of 200 respondents' attitudes as determined by their professional activities

Statistics: Internal consistency for all 6 issues ranging from .86 to .95

Author(s): Richard E. Peterson, John A. Centra, Rodney T. Hartnett, and Robert L. Linn

Publisher: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Date: Copyright 1968 (instrument)
Copyright 1970 (preliminary technical manual)

Cost: For faculty, administrators, and other nonstudents:
Computer Printout Service, $1.00 per answer sheet, scored (for students: $ .90)
Data Card Service, $1.00 per answer sheet, scored (for students: $ .90)
Combined Scoring Service, $1.00 per answer sheet, scored (for students: $1.00)
$50.00 minimum charge for scoring the answer sheets included in one printout or data card set
$3.00 per Specimen Set
Magnetic tape output also available on request

Purpose: To provide a means by which a college or university can describe itself in terms of a number of characteristics judged to be of importance in American higher education

Environment(s) Assessed: Total university

Target Population(s): Primarily for use with faculty; also appropriate for administrators and staff; students may complete the first half of IFI

Norm Group(s): 37 public and private colleges and universities selected to reflect U.S. 4-year colleges by geography, size, and level of offerings

Format: Subject is asked to respond to 132 multiple-choice items (students to 74), which are presented in four sections: Sections 1 and 3 require "yes," "no," or "don't known responses; Sections 2 and 4 require "strongly agree," "agree," "disagree," or "strongly disagree" responses. Students respond to Sections 1 and 2 and faculty and appropriate others respond to Sections 3 and 4.

Instrument yields scores on 11 dimensions or scales, each composed of 12 items Scales are Intellectual-Aesthetic Extracurriculum, Freedom, Human Diversity, Concern for Improvement of Society, Concern for Undergraduate Learning, Demographic Governance, Meeting Local Needs, Self-Study and Planning, Concern for Advancing Knowledge, Concern for Innovation, and Institutional Esprit.

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes

Scoring: Key provided in the test manual, but hand scoring not practical--see Cost for listing of available scoring options

Interpretation: May be used to focus on the perceptions of faculty, administrators, students, or to examine differences between the perceptions of various subgroups, or to monitor institutional change

Statistics: Internal consistency reliabilities based on group means range from .86 for Self-Study and Planning Scale to .96 for Democratic Governance and Concern for Advancing Knowledge scale for faculty. Range for students is .87 to .96 and for administrators .83 to .94. While factor analysis suggests the presence of only 4 factors, the authors have opted to retain the 11 subscales until further data are received.

Author: Richard E. Peterson

Publisher: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Date: Copyright 1972 (Note: Information listed in this summary is tentative because the technical manual was not available at time of publication.)

Cost: Booklet/Answer Sheet, $.35
Scoring and reporting service, $1.25 per booklet, scored
$200 minimum charge for scoring the booklets included in one report

Purpose: To help colleges and universities define their educational goals, establish priorities among those goals, and give direction to their present and future planning

Target Population(s): Subgroups within the academic community such as faculty, administrators, and students

Environment(s) Assessed: Total university

Norm Group(s): Some baseline information from a 1971 West Coast Pilot project involving 10 colleges available, but final norming not complete

Format: Subjects are asked to respond to 90 institutional goal statements on a 5-point scale ranging from "Of No Importance" to "Of Extremely High Importance," both as the goals exist on campus, "is," and as the subjects would like them to exist "should be." Space is also provided for response to 20 goal statements written locally.

Twenty subscales are organized into two broad dimensions:

Output Goal Areas

1. Academic Development
2. Intellectual Orientation
3. Individual/Personal Development
4. Humanism/Altruism
5. Cultural/Esthetic Awareness
6. Traditional Religiousness
7. Vocational Preparation
8. Advanced Training
9. Research
10. Meeting Local Needs
11. Public Service
12. Social Egalitarianism
13. Social Criticism/Activism

Process Goal Areas

1. Freedom
2. Democratic Governance
3. Community
4. Intellectual/Esthetic Environment
5. Innovation
6. Off-Campus Learning
7. Accountability/Efficiency

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximatelv 45 minutes

Scoring: Machine scored by ETS; report includes 20 goal areas, 90 goal statements, and 20 local items summarized for both "is" and "should be" responses.

Interpretation: Possible focus or comparison of "is" and "should be" scores and profiles within or between groups, rank-ordering of goals, analysis of responses to individual items, or considering the size of discrepancies between "is" and "should be" scores within or between groups

Statistics: Preliminary expectations of item intercorrelations for a given scale of about .40 (internal consistency reliability). Moderate alpha probably due to small number of items in the scale. Final statistical information not available.

Author: Alexander W. Astin

Publisher: National Computer Systems
Survey Research Services
4401 West 76th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435

Date:

Cost: Booklets: packages of 25 @ $3.00
Tape or punch card records of item responses for individuals @ $.08 each, plus shipping cost and cost of tapes

Purpose: To describe and measure some of the important differences among the environments of undergraduate institutions

Target Population(s): Although designed primarily to be completed by undergraduates, most items are also applicable to graduate students

Environment(s) Assessed: Total university

Norm Group(s): ICA profile information obtained from 1967 stratified samples of 34,693 students at 246 two- and four-year institutions

Format: Students are asked to respond to 16 questions designed to gather general information about their history, career goals, and college experiences, and to 4 questions which require student evaluation of their college's atmosphere. Option provided for 18 locally written items with up to 10 responses each.

Information was initially organized into 4 major categories (peer, classroom, administrative, and physical environments) with factor analyses yielding 33 dimensions: competitiveness versus cooperativeness, organized dating, independence, cohesiveness, informal dating, femininity, drinking versus religiousness, musical and artistic activity, leisure time, career indecision, regularity of sleeping habits, use of the library, conflict with regulations, student employment, use of automobiles, involvement in the class, verbal aggressiveness, extraversion of instructor, familiarity with instructor, organization in the classroom, severity of grading, severity of administrative policy against the following: drinking, heterosexual activity, aggression, cheating, academic competitiveness, concern for the individual student, school spirit, permissiveness, snobbishness, emphasis on athletics, flexibility of the curriculum, and emphasis on social life.

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 20 to 25 minutes

Scoring: National Computer Systems
4401 West 76th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435

Scores provided on 33 ICA dimensions and up to 99 subgroups of respondents; punch tape or IBM cards of respondent's answers to individual items also available

Interpretation: Focus on individual items or dimensions within an institution or on comparisons with national norms on major dimensions

Statistics: Reliability: Spearman-Brown split-half intercorrelations of 33 dimensions range from .850 to .950+, with median corrected reliability coefficient of .931

Validity: ICA factors were correlated with 10 continuous measures at the college environment (including the 8 Astin and Holland Environmental Assessment Technique variables), with the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) and with 10 different typological characteristics of institutions. Details of studies provided in the test manual.

Author(s): B. R. Morstain and R. M. Gray

Publisher: Office of Academic Planning and Evaluation
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19711

Date: Copyright 1971, 1973

Cost: SOS inventory, scoring, and computer report (two copies of total group analysis), per individual, $.50; minimum charge, $30.00
Manual, $2.50
Other comparative group analyses based on questions listed in the General Information section and/or by student responses to the two additional questions developed for particular group needs, $5.00 each

Purpose: To assess the expressed attitudes of students toward various philosophies, processes, and purposes of a college educations to assess students' expressed attitudes regarding curricular-instructional policies, their views on preferred modes of learning, student-faculty roles, etc.

Environment(s) Assessed: Total university

Target Population(s): Undergraduate students

Norm Group(s): 3,838 students in 5 institutions (Concordia College, Harcum Junior College, Muhlenberg College, Steubenville College, and University of Delaware

Format: The student is asked to respond to 80 statements expressing a variety of attitudes toward education, and to 5 questions designed to gather information about the students (year in school, major, living arrangements, sex, and type of institution). Response to the statements is on a 4-point scale ("not at all like my attitude," "not very much like my attitude," "reflects my attitude somewhat," "closely reflects my attitude").

There are 10 subscales composed of 8 items each which are organized into 5 major dimensions: (1) Purpose (Achievement and Inquiry subscales), (2) Process (Assignment Learning and Independent Study subscales), (3) Power (Assessment and Interaction subscales), (4) Peer Relations (Affiliation and Informal Association subscales), (5) Public Position (Affirmation and Involvement subscales). In addition, 5 of the scales cluster as a general Preparatory Orientation to college (Achievement, Assignment Learning, Assessment, Affiliation, and Affirmation) and 5 cluster as a general Exploratory Orientation to college (Inquiry, Independent Study, Interaction, Informal Association, and Involvement).

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: Approximately 15 minutes

Scoring: General information as to scoring procedure is provided, but hand scoring is not practical; machine scoring, computer reports, profiles and data decks provided as part of package cost of instrument

Interpretation: Focus on relationships between student attitudes and (1) personality characteristics, (2) measure of aptitude, (3) major or curriculum choice, (4) family or ethnic background, living arrangements, etc., and (5) academic achievement

Focus on the question of institutional "impact" (through longitudinal designs)

Statistics: Internal consistency (coefficient alpha for 10 subscales ranging from .64 to .84)

Subscale intercorrelations (Pearson product-moment) tend to show moderate correlations within the Preparatory cluster (.24 to .58), a wide range within the Exploratory cluster (.01 to .56), and a wide range of negative correlations between clusters (-.01 to -.55).

SOS scale scores were correlated with scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory, 4 Clark-Trow typologies, SAT Verbal and Math scores, and other data regarding students in different institutional settings or curricular areas. Studies cited seem to indicate significant relationships between SOS measures of educational orientations of attitudes and instruments or classifications listed above. Manual provides detailed summaries.

Student Reactions to College

Author(s): Jonathan R. Warren and Pamela J. Roelfs

Publisher: Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Date: Copyright 1973

Cost:

Purpose: To provide a vehicle through which students can provide administrators and faculty with information to be used in planning and revising educational programs and services

Environment(s) Assessed: Total environment of community and junior college

Target Population(s): Community and junior college students with a minimum of one term's experience at the college

Norm Group(s): Instrument designed to be used for local decision-making versus comparison against national standards; preliminary form was administered to approximately 6,500 students in 27 two-year colleges

Format: Students are asked to answer 14 classification items and to react to 171 statements about some aspect of their college life. Response alternatives range in number from 3 ("no," "yes once," "yes twice or more"), to 4 ("almost never" to "almost always") to 5 ("definitely not" to "definitely yes"). Option available for up to 20 locally written items.

Items can be considered separately or organized into the following factored item subgroups: quality of instruction, student-centered instruction, academic performance, studying problems, instructor accessibility, involvement with faculty and staff, certainty of plans, active involvement in planning, programming problems, problems of registration and scheduling, administrative control of students, anger toward the administration, desire for help with living problems, financial and related problems.

Administration: Paper and pencil questionnaire

Time Required for Completion: 30 to 45 minutes

Scoring: Machine-scoring available through ETS

Interpretation: Possible focus on identifying program areas needing attention, needs of particular student groups, exemplary programs or services, documenting support for program changes, extent of student satisfaction/ dissatisfaction, providing information for college planning

Statistics: Efforts were made to establish indicator of reliability by comparing samples within and across colleges, but no coefficients were produced

University Residence Environment Scale

Author(s): Rudolph M. Moos, Marvin S. Gerst

Publisher: Social Ecology Laboratory
Department of Psychiatry
Stanford University
Veterans Administration Hospital
Stanford, California 94305

Date: Copyright 1969, 1971

Cost:

Purpose: To assess the social climates of university living groups such as dormitories, sororities, and fraternities

Environment(s) Assessed: Residence halls, Greek houses, and religious or other special-interest groups

Target Population(s): Residents and staff members of university student living groups

Norm Group(s): 168 living units located in 16 public and private college and universities--wide variety of living arrangements included

Format: Student or staff member is asked to respond to statements designed to identify characteristics of the living environment which exert a "press" toward 1 of 10 measures (subscales) of social climate. Each of the subscales is represented by 9 or 10 items on the instrument (except for Form S which is composed of 4 items per subscale).

The 10 measures are organized into 3 major dimensions: (1) Relationship (Involvement and Support subscales); (2) Personal Growth or Development (Independence, Traditional Social Orientation, Competition, Academic Achievement, and Intellectuality subscales); (3) System Maintenance and System Change (Order and Organization, Student Influence, and Innovation subscales).

Form R2 (Real Form) - 96 statements to which student responds "true" or "false" for his/her living unit

Form E (Expectation Form) - Parallel to Real Form with statements rewritten to elicit student expectation of living environment

Form I (Ideal Form) - Parallel to Real Form with statements rewritten to elicit student's ideal conception of living environment

Form S (Short Form) - Composed of 4 representative items from each subscale of Real Form--yields results similar to Form R2

Administration: Written--paper and pencil questionnaire
Oral--tape-recorded instructions and questions with IBM answer sheets

Time Required for Completion: Forms R2, I, and E--approximately 20 minutes
Form S--approximately 10 minutes

Scoring: Key provided in manual for hand scoring

Interpretation: Possible focus on individual subscales, comparisons over time, comparisons among living units, or comparison between forms

Development: From item analysis of 238 items on initial Form R administered in 13 residence halls and 140 items on secondary Form R2

Statistics: Individual test-retest reliabilities ranging from .59 to .74 (after one month) and pooled test-retest reliabilities range from .86 to .98 (after one month)

Environmental Assessment Techniques*

*This material is adapted from a research grant application, "Institutional Assessment and Counseling Outreach," submitted to NIMH, with Weston H. Morrill, principal investigator. This material also constituted a portion of a master's thesis, "Institutional Assessment in Outreach Counseling: A Comparison of Two Techniques," by Sue Hyne, Colorado State University, June 1973. (This handout revised August 1973.)

Sue Hyne, compiler
Student Development Center
Lewis and Clark College
Portland, Oregon

Introduction

Techniques for the assessment of institutional-environmental variables are not as well developed as the personality measures used with individuals. Although the two procedures may be roughly analogous, the major focus of environmental assessment to date has been on classifying and/or differentiating institutions rather than on studying the unique features of a single institution, as is the case in individual personality assessment. Baird (1971), in categorizing the types of information yielded from college environmental measures, noted that "more attention has been devoted to gathering general knowledge than to developing measure of high utility" in campus decision making. Assessment of intra-institutional variables rather than inter-institutional variables conceivably would be more useful in outreach programming. Accordingly, Baird concluded that: researchers and test developers need to be more concerned about the possible uses to which their instruments might be put, and should try to develop instruments and information systems that could be the basis for individual and institutional decisions. [P. 85]

Baird's contention is crucial in highlighting the research that needs to be done to create a viable means of basing counseling programs on informative institutional-environmental data. Much of the preliminary background work has already been carried out. The American Council on Education's input-output model has identified relevant factors to be assessed. Methods and instruments have been devised to measure some of these student and environmental variables, and steps in the assessment process have been outlined (Kaiser, 1972; Menne, l967). The integration and further refinement of these contributions is one objective of this study. A further review and critique of the most crucial components in this process--the environmental assessment methodologies--follows.

A brief survey of techniques designed to assess environmental variables gives an indication of the approaches currently used. Environmental assessment techniques can be classified under four major approaches--demographic, perceptual, behavioral (Menne, 1967), and multimethod. Many of the instruments and techniques mentioned conceivably could be placed in more than one category, as they contain elements of each approach. However, generally they are classified in the grouping that reflects their major emphasis of approach. Many more instruments exist than are reported here; for example, many were developed for local use on a single campus. Some of the environmental assessment techniques listed have been published for widespread use; others are primarily research instruments with limited application to date. Although these instruments and techniques have been developed for diverse purposes, some could probably be successfully adapted for use in outreach programming. However, several issues must be explored before such adaptation can be most profitably applied.

Demographic approach to Environmental Assessment

Demographic variables such as institutional size, ability level of students, or number of faculty members may be combined in the descriptive analysis of college environments. Demographic measures have the advantage of verifiable, readily available information as a data base, thus facilitating widespread comparative collegiate research. Demographic variables such as class size can also be more amenable to direct manipulation when efforts to alter the university environment are initiated.

Interpretation of scales derived from this process may be rather arbitrary, however. In addition, it is difficult to identify specifically the sources of impact within the university or college that result in different environments. Demographic measures tend to remain remarkably stable over long periods of time and thus may not reflect environmental changes that have occurred. For example, test-retest reliabilities of five of the six personal orientations of Astin and Holland's (1961) Environmental Assessment Technique for a six-year interval ranged from .80 to .97. Such high reliability may mask significant changes in the environment.

The demographic technique, therefore, is largely a descriptive approach with limited applications for outreach programming. Supplementary demographic information might be used, however, to augment and clarify the results from other types of assessment.

1. Factor analysis of demographic variables (Astin, 1962; Richards, Rand, and Rand, 1965)

2. Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) (Astin, 1963; Astin and Holland, 1961)

Perceptual Approach to Environmental Assessment

The assessment of college or university environments using a perceptual approach usually involves responses to a series of descriptive statements that yield a global "picture" of the institution in terms of derived scales or factors. The perceptions of various groups--students, faculty members, administrators, parents, counselors, admissions officers, counseling psychologists--may be compared (Berdie, 1967; Brown, 1970; Butler, 1968; Donato and Fox, 1970; Fox, 1971; Guilliams and Dollar, 1972; Riley, 1970; Seymour, 1968). By modifying instructions for administration, perceptions of the "expected," "actual," or "ideal" environment may be elicited (Lauterbach and Vielhaber, 1966; Standing and Parker, 1964). In addition, a cross-sectional or a longitudinal format may be used in studying trends over time (Johnson and Kurpius, 1967).

Perceptual measures have been used frequently in environmental assessment and have several unique advantages. These measures are quite sensitive to environmental change, and results are easier to interpret and understand. Centra (1970) has contended that perceptual measures are less sensitive to individual student differences than behavioral measures, and that representative sampling may not be as crucial as a prerequisite to obtaining a valid portrayal of the institution. In addition, several of these instruments have been published, are readily available, and have demonstrated psychometric adequacy.

Perceptual measures, however, may only reflect the "perceived environment" and not necessarily the actual environment. Students' reports may be biased or inaccurate due to an "image lag" (Centra, 1968), a selected and limited perspective (Austin, 1970), or a tendency to "overrate the institution (Centra, 1968).

Pace (1969) countered some of these criticisms:

The assumed validity of the collective perception approach lies in the argument that "fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." Regardless of individual behavior, or assorted physical facts such as money or size, the environment, in a psychological sense, is what it is perceived to be by the people who live in it. Even if one grants the possibility of self-deception on a large scale, the perceived reality, whatever it is, influences one's behavior and response. Thus, realistically, what people think is true is true for them. [P. 7]

The interaction between personality variables and response to a perceptual measure has to be fully delineated before we can be certain that environmental factors, and not the personality characteristics of the respondents, are being assessed. In addition, most perceptual measures do not generally provide direct cues to the sources of impact or press within the environment.

The perceptual approach to environmental assessment is the best developed and most widely used technique available presently. Additional research using the perceptual approach should prove useful in outreach programming.

1. College Characteristic Index (CCI) (Pace and Stern, 1958)

2. College and University Environment Scales (CUES) (Pace, 1969)

3. College Characteristics Analysis (CCA) (Pace, 1964; Pace and Baird, 1966)

4. Institutional Functioning Inventory (IFI) (Peterson and others, 1970)

5. Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) (Pervin, 1967)

6. College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ) (Starr, Betz, and Menne, 1971) 7. University Residence Environment Scale (URES) (Gerst and Moos, n.d.)

8. Campus Environment Scale (CES) (Kansas City Regional Council for Higher Education, 1969)

Behavioral Approach to Environmental Assessment

Specific observable student behaviors may also be studied as a guide to assessing institutional climate or environment. Behavioral measures can provide a more accurate and detailed account of activities within a university setting and can point to specific areas for institutional interventions. They also have the advantage of pinpointing issues specific to a particular campus that may inadvertently be missed by demographic or perceptual approaches. Chickering (1972, p. 142) also observed that "data concerning the daily activities and experiences of students provide more immediately useful and powerful information for program planners and decision makers."

Centra (1970) emphasized that:

When students are reporting their own behavior or interests, a representative sample of students from each institution is especially crucial. Only then does an institution's score represent an average of all kinds of students at a college. [P. 5]

At the present time, this approach is not well developed and should be an area of focus for further research. Suitable instruments for behavior assessment could make a significant contribution to the assessment of university environments in outreach programming.

1. Inventory of College Activities (ICA) (Astin, 1971a; 1971b)

2. Experience of College Questionnaire (ECQ) (McDowell and Chickering, 1967)

3. Unstructured Student Interviews (Bloom, 1971; Carruth and Comer, 1972)

4. Participant-Observer Debriefings (Eddy, 1959; Kennedy and Danskin, 1968)

Multimethod Approach to Environmental Assessment

Additional assessment techniques combine the demographic, perceptual, and behavioral approaches in an attempt to gather a variety of relevant information in a single effort.

1. College Student Questionnaire (CSQ) (Peterson, 1968)

2. Questionnaire on Student and College Characteristics (QSCC) (Centra, 1970)

3. Anthropological Vignette (Riesman and Jencks, 1962)

4. Data Banks (Astin, 1967; Institutional Self-Study Service Announcement, 1972)

References

Astin, A. W. An empirical characterization of higher educational institutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 224-235.

- . Further validation of the environmental assessment technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54(4), 217-226.

- . A program of research on student development in higher education. ACE Research Reports, 1967, 2(6), 1-13.

- . Manual for the inventory of college activities. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, 1971(a).

- . Two approaches to measuring students' perceptions of their college environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1971b, 12(3), 169-172.

Astin, A. W., and Holland, J. L. The environmental assessment technique: A way to measure college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52(6), 308-316.

Austin, M. Methods for surveying opinion among university students and faculty. Seattle: Bureau of Testing Project, University of Washington, 1970.

Baird, L. L. The functions of college environmental measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971, 8(2), 83-86.

Berdie, R. F. A university is a many-faceted thing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 768-775.

Bloom, B. L. A university freshman preventive intervention program: Report of a pilot project. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37(2), 235-242.

Brown, R. D. Parental perceptions of university life and their characterizations of their college sons and daughters. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1970, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) No. ED 038 699.

Butler, R. R. Differences in need-press variables as perceived by university and junior college students, 1968. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) No. ED 023 386.

Carruth, J. F., and Comer, P. E. Outreach by structured interview. In W. H. Morrill (ed.), Preliminary report: Outreach-developmental programs in college counseling. Grant No. R 01 MH 18007, National Institute of Mental Health, 1972.

Centra, J. A. Studies of institutional environments: Categories of instrumentation and some issues. In C. Fincher (ed.) Institutional research and academic outcomes: Proceedings of the eighth annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, 1968.

- . The college environment revisited: Current descriptions and a comparison of three methods of assessment. College Entrance Examination Board Research and Development Reports, RDR-70-71, No. 1. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

Chickering, A. W. Undergraduate academic experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63(2), 134-143.

Donato, D. J., and Fox, G. C. Admissions officer, faculty, and student perceptions of their college environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1970, 11(4),

Eddy, E. D. The college influence on student character: An exploratory study in selected colleges and universities made for the Committee for the Study of Character Development in Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959.

Fox, J. V. D. Actual and desirable campus environment as perceived by allied health students classified into four creative ability groups. Paper based on dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971.

Gerst, M. S., and Moos, R. H. The social ecology of university student residences.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, n.d.

Guilliams, D. J., and Dollar, R. J. Perceptions of the community college environment by high school counselors, community college counselors, and community college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1972, 13(4), 338-340.

Institutional Self-study Service Announcement. Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing Program, 1972.

Johnson, R. W., and Kurpius, D. J. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of students' perceptions of their college environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 199-203.

Kaiser, L. R. Campus ecology: Implications for environmental design. A paper of the WICHE Task Force--Epidemiology, Campus Ecology, and Program Evaluation, Boulder, Colo., 1972.

Kansas City Regional Council for Higher Education, Office of Institutional Research. Campus environment: An on-going assessment of student attitudes. Kansas City, 1969

Kennedy, D. E., and Danskin, D. G. Research frontier: Pilot phase of a research project studying student development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15(1), 98-100.

Lauterbach, C. G., and Vielhaber, D. Need-press and expectations-press indices as predictors of college achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1966, 26, 965-972.

McDowell, J., and Chickering, A. W. The experience of college questionnaire. Plainfield, Vt.: Project on Student Development, 1967 (mimeographed).

Menne, J. W. Techniques for evaluating the college environment. Journal of Educational Measurements, 1967, 4, 219-225.

Pace, C. R. The influence of academic and student subcultures in college and university environments. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, USOE Cooperative Research Project 1083, 1964.

- . College and university environment scales technical manual (2nd ed.), Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969.

Pace, C. R., and Baird, L. Attainment patterns in the environmental press of college subcultures. In T. M. Newcomb, and E. K. Wilson (eds.), College peer qroups: Problems and prospects for research. Chicago: Aldine, 1966.

Pace, C. R., and Stern, G. G. An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 49(5), 269-277.

Pervin, L. A. A twenty-college study of student x college interaction using TAPE (transactional analysis of personality and environment): Rationale, reliability and validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58(5), 290302.

Peterson, R. E. College student questionnaire technical manual (rev. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968.

Peterson, R. E., Centra, J. A., Hartnett, R. T., and Linn, R. L. Institutional functioning inventory technical manual. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

Richards, J. M., Rand, L. M., and Rand, L. P. A description of junior colleges. Iowa City: American College Testing Program, 1965.

Riesman, D., and Jencks, C. The viability of the American college. In N. Sanford (ed.), The American college: A psychological and social interpretation of the higher learning. New York: Wiley, 1962.

Riley, W. R. A comparison of perception of the university environment by undergraduate married and single male students. Columbia: University of Missouri--Columbia, 1970, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) No. ED 045 041.

Seymour, W. R. Student and counselor perceptions of college environments. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9, 79-84.

Standing, G. R., and Parker, C. A. The CCI as a measure of entering students' per conceptions of college life. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1964, 6, 2-6.

Starr, A. M., Betz, E. L., and Menne, J. W. College student satisfaction questionnaire(CSSQ) manual. Iowa State University. Ames: Central Iowa Associates, 1971.