GRE Use among the Higher Education Community: Historical Practice Is Not Always Best Practice.

Abstract This paper describes three areas in which the graduate community is vulnerable to substandard practice when using Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) scores in decision processes. The results of a survey of the graduate community suggest that when using GPE scores in admission processes, the graduate community frequently does not implement best practices for test score use, and that its admissions officers are unaware of a notable limitation regarding raw scores and percentile equivalents. The survey showed that the graduate community frequently falls short of best practices regarding GRE scores in the following three areas: (O) percentile versus raw scores, (2) cut-off scores and (3) summed scores. Most notably, the graduate community is generally unaware that raw scores on the verbal, quantitative, and analytical sections of the GRE do not represent matching percentile scores. This paper intends to increase awareness about some ways the GRE is commonly misunderstood and misused. This paper reveals that in particular instances, the graduate community may not be aware of optimal Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) score use and may not be heeding guidelines for score use as described by Educational Testing Service (ETS), which develops and annually administers the test. The results of recent surveys suggest that when using the GRE in admissions decisions, the graduate school community commonly falls short of following the best practices when considering (1) percentile versus raw scores, (2) cut-off scores, and (3) summed scores. In the case of percentile versus raw scores, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the fact that raw scores may represent very different percentile scores for the three major sections of the GRE: verbal (V), quantitative (Q) and analytical (A). Though substantial differences can exist between raw and percentile scores for high frequency score ranges, raw scores are widely used without recognition of the corresponding percentile score. Cut-off scores are commonly used as a means of winnowing applicant pools despite discouragement by ETS. Finally, contrary to ETS recommendations, GRE sub-scores are commonly summed for use in general analysis and decision processes. Though the vast majority of the graduate community are generally aware that using summed scores is poor practice, a sizeable portion, almost one-third, continues to use summed scores in the decision process. In revealing these conditions this paper does not intend to diminish the usefulness of the GRE, but rather, the paper intends to increase awareness about some ways in which the test is frequently misunderstood and misused. The graduate community-- faculty, admissions officers, deans, fellowship committees, etc.-substantially rely upon standardized test scores when evaluating applicants for admission to graduate programs and granting financial awards. For other than professional schools, e.g., law, medicine and business, the GRE is the most commonly used standardized admission test. Annually, thousands of prospective graduate students take the exam, hoping that satisfactory scores will result in admission and favorable financial assistance packages. After using the GRE scores for decades, the graduate community has developed an underlying understanding of the test and the scores. Unfortunately, that understanding is characterized by pervasive practices that consider neither stated limitations of the test nor important, but not so obvious, differences between raw and percentile scores. This review of test score use within the graduate community coincides with the ongoing national discussion about proper use of scores in undergraduate admissions. In that arena, too, widely held beliefs about test score use are being reconsidered to evaluate the proper use of the test (Healy 2000). Recently, ETS executive John Yopp testified to the importance and difficulty of ensuring that GRE test scores are used property (Council of Public University Presidents and Chancellors 2000). …