Nesley Bravo

Assignment 3, Section 1-5

March 3, 2015

College Access Now (CAN) has a high school program that funnels our low-income, and
typically first generation students of color into the college persistence program. CAN provides
coaching services to support students to enroll and complete college. An issue in need of
attention is being able to identify students that need additional assistance in the College
Persistence Program, especially with limited resources and time, and high caseloads. I will be
addressing this issue through researching the effectiveness of the Student Readiness Inventory
(SRI) and Big Five Inventory. The purpose of the inventories are to assess student preparation
for higher education based on non-cognitive factors that arent accounted for in individuals
grade point average and standardized test scores. Analyzing inventory assessments will allow me
to find tools that can be used in the program.
Specifically for my research, I will be asking the COPES question, If under-served collegeenrolled students complete the Student Readiness Inventory or the Big Five Inventory, which
will result in more effective identification of at-risk students and predicting student retention the
first-year of college? I formulated this question as the Student Readiness Inventory and/or Big
Five Inventory can be utilized at College Access Now during the summer sessions to help the
College Persistence Team identify students they should pay additional attention to as students
begin college to help increase retention likelihood. Learning about the effectiveness of each
inventory assessment can hopefully lead to the assessment being implemented into the program.
If neither assessments are viewed as effective, alternative course of action is using the research I
found to be directed to other possible tools I can assess.

I formulated my COPES questions with consideration of different factors. The question

includes the client type (under-served college-enrolled students), the first intervention option
1

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

(Student Readiness Inventory), the alternate course of action (the Big Five Inventory) and what I
want to accomplish (which will be more effective). The question is client oriented as it identifies
the client type, and practical/answerable as I can find research articles addressing my question.
Overall, my objective in researching the SRI and Big Five Inventory tools to see if CAN can use
the tools to help coaches identify high-risk students before they enter the College Persistence
Program so they can be prioritized in the high caseloads when they enter the program.

To address my research question regarding the possible use of the SRI and Big Five
Inventory assessments, I conducted multiple database searches to identify relevant research
articles. I utilized the EBSCOhost- Academic Search Complete database, EBSCOhostEducation Source database and Proquest ERIC database. For all three databases, I used the same
key word search terms. These key word search terms consisted of Student Readiness
Inventory, Big Five Inventory and academic performance. I conducted searches using all
three terms as once. I would search of the first two terms individually with the last term,
academic performance. I also searched the assessment names with terms such as college
outcomes, academic-related skills, noncognitive predictors, psychosocial factors and
retention. Lastly, I have searched Student Readiness Inventory AND Big Five Inventory
together to find articles that compared both assessments. Limitations I placed on the search
include only having articles before the year 2000, scholarly journals and full text articles in the
search engine results.

An example of one data base search I did was on the database EBSCOhost- Academic Search
Complete. On the database, I searched the term, Student Readiness Inventory. I limited my
search to only scholarly articles to filter out articles that may be news articles or dissertations.
2

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

The search resulted in only five citations. Out of the five, only three articles were relevant to my
search. I ended up using all three articles for my research question. The articles assessed the
inventorys abilities to measure more non-traditional predictors for college outcomes and
compared the traditional and non-traditional predictors in their ability to measure preparation for
college. One compared the SRI with the Big Five Inventory. The scholarly articles that did not
work were ones that did not include a hypothesis or conduct a study. There was also a duplicate
of one article in the search. The amount of articles available for SRI is significantly less than the
articles available when searching Big Five Inventory on the same search engine. There were
159 citations available with the same limitation of having only scholarly journals.

Full Citation
Peterson, C.H., Casillas, A., & Robbins,
S.B. (2006). The Student Readiness
Inventory and the Big Five: Examining
social desirability and college academic
performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41(4), 663-673.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.006
OConnor, M.C., & Paunonsen, S.V.
(2007). Big Five personality predictors
of post-secondary academic
performance. Personality& Individual
Differences, 43(5), 971-990.
Doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
Komarraju, M., Ramsey, A., & Rinella,
V. (2013). Cognitive and non-cognitive
predictors of college readiness and
performance: Role of academic
discipline. Learning & Individual
Differences, 24, 103-109.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.007
Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A.,
Peterson, C., & Le, H. (2006).
Unraveling The Differential Effects Of
Motivational And Skills, Social, And

Applicability to Question
Best article- actually compares the
power of each inventory
- Examines power of inventory to
predict college GPA

Meta-analysis (systematic review)

about outcome you are hoping to
achieve
-relationship between big five
personality traits and academic
achievement
Demonstrate college readiness with SRI
to identify at-risk students

Measure predictive validity of SRI for

academic performance and retention

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Self-Management Measures From

Traditional Predictors Of College
Outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(3), 598-616.
http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/00220663.98.3.598
Vedel, A. (2014). The Big Five and
Systematic review and meta- analysis
tertiary academic performance: A
systematic review and meta-analysis.
Reports relationship between big five
Personality & Individual Differences,
personality traits and academic
71, 66-76.
performance
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011
The articles I used had an array of methodological strengths and weaknesses. In OConnor et
al. (2007)s meta-analysis, multiple articles were collected to evaluate how personality traits
served as predictors of academic success. A strength of the meta-analysis was the array of studies
used from 1991- 2006. A methodological weakness was the exclusion criteria of studies that
were outliers in following the general conclusion trend. Peterson et al. (2006) did their study
through collecting data from 468 university students. A weakness in this methodology is the
validity decay due to self-reporting. This could result in missing data or false information. There
was also a high proportion of white women in the sample studied. Strengths in the methodology
include having a big sample size and a review of current theories and models to overcome
limitations stated in other studies (2006). Vedel et al. (2014) used 20 studies with a sample size
of 17,717 to report the relationship between Big Five personality traits and academic
performance. This large sample size is a strength in the studys structure. Weaknesses in the
article consisted of a high drop-out rate and the use of convenience sampling. Komarraju et al.
(2013) had potential sample sizes in their all three of their studies. A weakness in this strength is
the skewed demographics in the second and third studies that consisted mostly of White
participants. A few predictive factors were also self-reported which could result in false or
4

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

missing information. Lastly, in Robbins et al. (2006)s study was voluntary based which limits
those attracted in participate in the study. Despite this weakness, a strength in the study was
having participants from both two and four year institutions.
Each article had room for potential bias in drawing conclusions. OConnor et al. (2007) did
not directly state any biases, but could have possibly provided bias conclusions due to the
funding support they received, such as the Doctoral Canada Graduate Scholarship and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Research Grant (2007). The limited
response due to self-reporting in Peterson et al. (2006)s study could result in limited
generalizations in the conclusion. Vedel et al. (2014) minimized potential biases by preventing a
file drawer problem through using funnel plots to identify possible publication biases. Robbins et
al. (2006) did not see evidence of selection bias at the institutional level and reported little
chance of response bias at the student level since participating institutions provided data on all
students in the study.

Overall, based on the evidence from these studies I can confidently conclude that the Student
Readiness Inventory is a stronger assessment in indicating if students are ready for college based
on non-cognitive factors. There was a consensus among the studies that the Big Five Inventory
assessment categories were too broad to accurately conclude if factors such as GPA and
commitment to school were connected. The studies in the research articles I utilized mainly had
white female participants, which does not align with my clients demographics that would be
utilizing the SRI assessment. This concern will need to be addressed if implemented in the
program.

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Section 3: Critically Appraise the research

Study citation Research
question/
intervention

Research
design and
sample

Measures and data

collection

Results

Strengths

Weaknesse Concl
s
usion

OConnor,
M.C., &
Paunonsen,
S.V. (2007).
Big Five
personality
predictors of
postsecondary
academic
performance.
Personality&
Individual
Differences,
43(5), 971990.
Doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2007.03.0
17

Reviewing of
lit: how big
five
personality
predict
academic
performance
and 2) looked
at more
narrow
personality
traits

Revised NEO
Personality Inventory,
NEO Five-Factor
Inventory, Big Five
Inventory, the Personal
Style Inventory, the 5
PFT

Conscientiousness
most commonly
liked to academic
success

studies from
1991 to 2006

pg 4:
outliers
were
excluded
from the
metaanalyses

Inclus
ion
and
exclu
sion
criteri
a

independent
contribution
of the big
five factors
versus
narrow
personality
traits cant
be
determined

Trans
paren
cy

METAANALYSES

Research question
evaluates
personality traits
as predictors of
academic
performance
Intervention: Big
Five
Why: personality
traits affect
certain habits that
influence
academic success,
personality traits
reflect what
people will do,
trend studying
performance of
university
students,
academic criteria
favor personality
and motivational

Conscientiousness
magnitude of
association for
academic success
range from small
to substantial

Collected
undergraduate GPA,
final grades in psych
course

Little evidence of
academic
association for
openness

Used factor
analysis of
SRI
dimensions

Extraversion saw
negative
correlation with
academics, small
average correlation
Neuroticism most
unassociated

Chose based
on degree
that the
research
could
improve
existing
predictor
batteries

narrow
better
predictor
need to
assess
narrow

Addre
ssed
limita
tions
Pg
17:
gave
sugge
stions
for
resear
ching
future

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

variables in
college

Agreeableness not
an important
determinant of
academics
Big five openness
not associated with
academic
performance

personality
traits and
broad
personality
factors
only use
single
indicator for
predictor of
academic
performance
Limited use
being based
on zero
order
predictor
criterion
correlations
Little
attention
paid to
understandi
ng the
processes
that account
for the
relation
Did not
mention

relati
ons

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

databases
used
Did not
directly
state biases
Gave thanks
on pg 18
Study citation Research
question/
intervention

Research
design and
sample

Measures and data

collection

Results

Strengths

Weaknesse Concl
s
usion

Peterson,
C.H., Casillas,
A., &
Robbins, S.B.
(2006). The
Student
Readiness
Inventory and
the Big Five:
Examining
social
desirability
and college
academic
performance.
Personality
and Individual
Differences,
41(4), 663-

n=468 2 and
4 year
students

Measure using high

school gpa and
achievement test scores

Big sample
size

14,464
students from
23 2 year and
25 4 year
institutions

Likert scale for BFI

that assessed Big Five,
Marlowe- Crowne
Social Desirability
Scale: false/true,
Student Readiness
Inventory: likert scale

No relation
between social
desirability and
cum. GPA

Selfreporting=
validity
decay

compared power
of big five
measure, big five
inventory and the
student readiness
inventory for
predicting college
GPA

social desirability
Ran
influence
incremental
construct and
predictive validity predictive
validity
Hypothesis: SRI
models,
match up with
controlling
Big Five
SES, race,
categories, but
gender, dif
account for
b/w
greater variance
institutions

Match up with Big

5= SRI taps into
personality
domains
Greatest relation
for SRI is GPA
with academic
discipline
GPA and social
desirable not
relatable

Reviewed
current
theories and
models to
overcome
limitations of
Robbins et.
als metaanalysis

-pg.
2:
early
id and
interv
Large
ention
sample of
progr
white
ams
women
requir
No info on e
clear
retention,
nonco
23% of
students did g
not have a assess
GPA, SDS ments
to
criticized
custo
for
measuremen mize
interv
t

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

673.
doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2006.03.0
06

in predicting
academic success
as its more
narrow

ention
s to at
Mentioned risk
theory, but stude
no ethics
nt
chara
cterist
The articles ics
limitations and
include the needs
sample not
representing
a typical
SRI
institutions scales
demographi not
cs. The
more
sample
vulne
included
rable
more
than
women and other
a smaller
selfamount of
report
minorities. meas
This limits ures,
the
more
generalizabi validi
lity of the
ty
findings. A over
high portion Big
of findings Five
did not
in
report
predic

Highly white
and female
population

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

college
GPA, and
did not
gather
information
about
retention.

ting
acade
mic
perfor
manc
e
SRI
does
not
tap
openn
ess to
same
degre
e as
other
big
five
domai
ns=
SRI
weak
ness
Stron
ger
predic
tor
for
GPA

10

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Study citation Research

question/
intervention

Research
design and
sample

Measures and data

collection

Results

Strengths

Weaknesse Concl
s
usion

Vedel, A.
(2014). The
Big Five and
tertiary
academic
performance:
A systematic
review and
meta-analysis.
Personality &
Individual
Differences,
71, 66-76.
doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2014.07.0
11

Random
effects model

Use NEO personality

inventory, NEO five
factor inventory, Big
five inventory, Big
Five markers, Big Five
International
Personality Item Pool

20 studies, 21
independent
studies

high
correlation
between selfreported
GPA and
registry GPA

dropout

Reports
relationship
between big five
personality traits
and tertiary
academic
performance
The academic
major of subjects
participating in
studies

20 studies,
sample size of
17,717

105 correlations
obtained

Countries
America and
Measure with GPA
greater Britain

Conscientiousness
is an indicator of
GPA

Individual
study sample
sizes 64 to
10,497

Findings suggest
goal directed
students with
feelings of
competency and
manage study
habits more likely
to finish their
studies

systematic
review and
meta-analysis

11

transparent:
went through
whole
process for
article
selection

Inclus
ion
big five too criteri
broad of a
a: the
predictor
5
Convenienc perso
e sampling nality
meas
Linearity
ures,
assumption studie
s with
any
File drawer meas
problemure of
prevent with big
fail- safe n, five
funnel plots perso
to identify nality
possible
traits
publication includ
biases and ed
duval and
Exclu
tweedies
trim and fill sion
criteri
method
a:
19962013

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Page
2: use
Proqu
est,
Austr
alian
educa
tion
index,
Britis
h
educa
tion
index,
ERIC
,
pysch
info
and
sociol
ogy
abstra
cts.
Years
marke
d
Used
keyw
ords
and
only
12

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

peer
article
s
Inclus
ion
criteri
a:
only
in
Engli
sh,
one
of the
perso
nality
meas
ures
show
n to
have
equall
y
good
criteri
on
relate
d
validi
ty
correl
ated
13

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

with
GPA,
had
zero
order
correl
ation
betwe
en big
five
and
GPA
Exclu
sion:s
ubset
of
perso
nality
meas
ures
for
meas
uring,
single
cours
e
grade
s
instea
d of
GPA,
14

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

nontertiar
y
level

Study citation Research

question/
intervention

Research
design and
sample

Measures and data

collection

Results

Komarraju,
M., Ramsey,
A., & Rinella,
V. (2013).
Cognitive and
non-cognitive
predictors of
college
readiness and
performance:
Role of
academic
discipline.
Learning &
Individual
Differences,
24, 103-109.
doi:10.1016/j.l
indif.2012.12.
007

College
freshmen
completed
SRI

375 college student

records

Conscientiousness
correlated with
academic perform.

Strength of ACT,
GPA, noncognitive factors ,
college readiness
skills in
predicting college
GPA
Pg 3: 6
hypothesis

Clarify
relationship
between cognitive
and non-cognitive
factors and to
investigate the
relative strength
of ACT, high
school GPA, and
non-cognitive

540 freshmen
undergrads, 1
missing
response, did
SRI and
reported ACT
scores and hs
GPA

Strengths

Controlled
for type 1
error using
MANOVA
Academic
procedures
discipline
for
connected to high
determining
performance,
differences in
social activity,
college
emotional control, readiness
commitment to
existed
college, social
between high
connection
and low
scoring
students with
Students scoring in regard to
upper half
high school
regarding HS GPA GPA and Act
possessed higher
scores.
college readiness
Make sig
contribution

Used hierarchical
regression analysis
Pg2: explains why
using measures

ACT, GPA, SRI, GPA

Page 3
explains test
for each
hypothesis

15

Weaknesse Concl
s
usion
Need for
more
empirical
evidence

SRI
captur
es
more
than
just
perso
Primarily
nality
White
participants comp
ared
in study 2
to big
and 3
five

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

factors for
predicting college
GPA

Study 1 is a
sample of 530
freshmen
undergraduate
s : complete
SRI, report
GPA and
ACT during
1st week of
classes

than students in
lower half

to the
literature by
highlighting
uniqueness
Students scoring in of academic
upper half of ACT discipline in
linking HS
scores scored sig
higher in academic and college
GPA, the
self-confidence
compared to lower variance in
college GPA
half. Students
beyond
scoring in lower
standardized
half had higher
test scores
commitment to
and HS GPA
college, goal
striving,
determination and
study skills than
the upper half

Study 2&3:
sample of 375
freshmen,
reported ACT,
HS GPA, SEI
and obtained
college GPA
from college
records

Academic
discipline predicts
current college
GPA beyond ACT
scores and HS
GPA

Relationship
between HS GPA
16

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

and college GPA

sig diminished
after accounting
for the effect of
academic
discipline

Study citation Research

question/
intervention

Research
design and
sample

Measures and data

collection

Results

17

Strengths

Weaknesse Concl
s
usion

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Robbins, S.,
Allen, J.,
Casillas, A.,
Peterson, C.,
& Le, H.
(2006).
Unraveling
The
Differential
Effects Of
Motivational
And Skills,
Social, And
SelfManagement
Measures
From
Traditional
Predictors Of
College
Outcomes. Jou
rnal of
Educational
Psychology, 9
8(3), 598-616.
http://psycnet.
apa.org/doi/10
.1037/00220663.98.3.598

Tested effects of
motivational and
skill, social, and
self-management
measures on
academic
performance and
retention
Use of theories
page 3

Sub-questions
considered in
study:
Different effects
of skills when
predicting college
outcomes? Do
psychosocial
factors from SRI
predict college
outcomes?
Interactions with
achievement of
PSF measures?
Are the effects of
PSF similar

14,464
students from
48 institutions
Participation
voluntary, no
compensation
98.8 percent
of surveys
usable

Participating
2 and 4 year
institutions
that have high
numbers of
ACT students
or have
COMPASS
test, make 2
year
commitment
to the study

SRI administered to at
least 200 first year
students before or
within first 6 weeks of
fall 2003 semester,
provide ACT or
COMPASS records,
individual grade
reports, semester GPA,
cumulative GPA and
retention info for end
of Fall 2003, Spring
2004, Fall 2004
semesters

Follow up data twice,

first time got 90%
responses, of 39/48
responded second time

SRI displayed
more validity than
big five

Confusing to
follow process

Addresses
weaknesses
such as lack
of systematic
study while
controlling
traditional
predictors
No selection
bias at
institutional
level, little
chance of
response
biases at
student level

High percent
of surveys
usable

Four SRI test forms

used with 108 items
arranged in four
different random orders

Institutions
from 25 states
primarily
within
Midwest and
18

Not clear
process to
follow,
limited
audience

Acad
emic
discip
line
and
comm
Did not
itmen
discuss
t to
inclusion
colleg
and
e
exclusion
were
criteria
top
Theories not predic
tors
clearly
of
tested
retent
ion
Limitations:
limited
articles that
predicted
degree
attainment,
need more
info on
theoretical
models

Social
conne
ction
conne
cted
to
retent
ion at
4
years
but

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

across 2 and 4
year institutions?

southeast, 48
institutions

High
number in
sample of
white
females

55% female,
67% white

not 2
years

Acad
emic
discip
Dont know line
why
predic
students
tor of
dropped out acade
mic
perfor
manc
e
outco
mes
and
acade
mic
discip
line
and
comm
itmen
t not
colleg
e for
retent
ion

19

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

Overa
ll
model
predic
tors
varied

Pg.
17:
low
stake
use of
SRI
prefer
red

20

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

During the virtual search process I used the search engines, Google, Yahoo and MSN. On
each search engine I searched the terms, effectiveness of Student Readiness Inventory in
predicting academic performance, effectiveness of Big Five Inventory in predicting academic
performance, Student Readiness Inventory versus Big Five Inventory, use of SRI. On
Google, the search term, effectiveness of Student Readiness Inventory in predicting academic
performance generated 417,000 sites that included mainly pdfs of scholarly articles. For the
effectiveness of Big Five on Google, 560,000 sites were produced that included a mixture of
informational websites and scholarly article pdfs. Google also produced 649,000 results for
Student Readiness Inventory versus Big Five Inventory that consisted of books and papers.
With less results than the rest on Google, use of Student Readiness Inventory had 158,000 hits
that also included journals. On Yahoo, the search term, effectiveness of Student Readiness
Inventory in predicting academic performance generated 2,940,000 sites that included science
and information sites. For the effectiveness of Big Five on Yahoo, 822,000 sites were produced
that included mainly scholarly article pdfs and research centers like ACT. Yahoo also produced
2,710,000 results for Student Readiness Inventory versus Big Five Inventory that consisted of
study pdfs. With the most results compared to the rest on Yahoo, use of Student Readiness
Inventory had 31,200,000 hits that also included ACT and scholarly articles. Consisting of the
same type of websites, MSNs search engine Bing produced 2,940,000; five; 2,840,000 and
31,200,000 results for each search term.

Most websites were scholarly journal pdfs, research databases, ACT or Wikipedia pages
defining the assessment. I was mostly able to access sites that provided more information on the
effectiveness and use of SRI and Big Five. Each looked as equally useful as they provided
21

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

information on the assessments themselves or provided analyses on the use of them in different
settings. The dissertation PDFs would be less useful as were using peer reviewed articles. One
difference I noticed was that for MSN and the search term effectiveness of Big Five Inventory
in predicting academic performance only produced five results, which is significantly lower
from the hundreds of thousands of articles from Yahoo and Googles search engines.

Based on the data collected, I will create an intervention plan for my practicum, College
Access Now. From the research provided, I will not be utilizing the Big Five Inventory at my
organization. It has been shown from numerous peer-reviews that the Student Readiness
Inventory categories are more effective in connecting non-cognitive factors to higher education
success compared to the Big Five Inventory. This has been attributed to the Student Readiness
Inventory consisting of more narrow personality sub-categories.

I will be suggesting the implementation of the SRI for College Access Now during the spring
curriculum for high school seniors as it will provide non-cognitive indicators for college success.
An alternative route to save money is having students take the assessment after we filter out who
is opting out of the College Persistence Program. The completion of this survey will help their
College Persistence coaches in the fall know if they are considered at-risk for dropping-out,
which will enable them to be prioritized in large caseloads. Based on data found I will also make
the following suggestions of what College Persistence coaches should look for when reviewing
student profiles when considering their level of college readiness and need. These suggestions
include focusing on the conscientiousness score and academic discipline. Those two categories
are most associated with GPA. Goal directed students with feelings of competency and study
habit skills are more likely to finish their studies. High school GPA is a strong indicator of
22

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

college GPA, with consideration of the students study habits. ACT scores are not indicators of
college readiness as students with lower scores are more associated with higher commitment to
college, goal striving, determination and study skills compared to those that scored higher. Social
connection was more associated with retention at four year institutions, rather than two years.
With the use of this assessment, I would like to keep in mind that some of the categories are not
strongly correlated with student success. Also, it needs to be further investigated why students
drop out. In addition, I question how accurate or useful the information received from the SRI
would be after students first year of college as the first year is transformative non-cognitively.
CANs client demographics consist of all low-income students, and mainly first generation
students of color. As first generation students, the system and navigating it may be very new to
students and their families. There are also a number of financial issues in funding school. For
some students it may be important to have existing ethnicity community groups at their schools
to connect to. These needs are important to consider as the subjects in the majority of the studies
performed do not reflect the student population I work with at CAN. The subjects were primarily
white females. Considering this, some of the SRI categories may serve as stronger indicators of
college readiness for CAN students, such as self-confidence as this may be more needed being in
communities where they identify as the minority, or commitment to college as other
commitments such as family may take priority over college persistence.

Additional non-cognitive strengths can be looked at considering the demographics of CAN

students, which can lend to college readiness and persistence. This includes being students who
have preserved through more difficulties or have additional responsibilities. The Community
Cultural Wealth Theory, which takes into account these more non-traditional higher education
23

Nesley Bravo
Assignment 3, Section 1-5
March 3, 2015

strengths can be consulted for additional assistance when interpreting SRI results and student
profiles.

To evaluate if my intervention is successful, I would ask for periodic feedback from the
College Persistence Coaches. This includes asking 1) if and how the SRI assessment has made a
difference in their abilities to prioritize their caseloads based on student need and 2) if the results
from the assessments have accurately portrayed the level of readiness they interpret when
interacting with individual students. I believe collecting information through feedback will be
most effective as they will be the ones directly utilizing the data from the SRI and interacting
with students that took the SRI assessment. I will ask for feedback once a month at our weekly
College Persistence team meetings for one academic school year. With the information gathered,
specifically the feedback forms I will collect at the end of each team meeting and the verbal
feedback I receive during the meetings, I will document them into an excel sheet that the
strengths, areas of improvement and possible changes for future assessment plans.

Based on the data I have collected to evaluate my action plan, I will know I have succeeded
if the feedback I have received demonstrates that 1) College Persistence Coaches are able to
better manage and identify high need students due to the Student Readiness Inventory
assessment, and 2) that the SRI is effective in predicting college readiness of individual students.
I would also be interested in hearing from students if they found their SRI results helpful in
working on areas of improvement identified by the report and if higher level leadership in CAN
sees purchasing the assessment as a worthy investment and use of time with our students.

24