FEBRUARY 2020

Validity of SAT for
Predicting First-Semester,Domain-Specific Grades®

PAUL A. WESTRICK, JESSICA P. MARINI, DORON SHMUELI,LINDA YOUNG, EMILY J. SHAW, AND HELEN NG

Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6

SAT Score Relationships with First Semester, Domain-Specific Grades ....................................................... 7
Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 7
Sample................................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 1: Institutional Characteristics of the 2017 SAT Validity Study Sample and Population of
Four-Year Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Student Characteristics of the 2017 SAT Validity Study Sample and 2017 Graduating
Seniors with SAT Scores .................................................................................................................... 9
Measures............................................................................................................................................... 9
Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 12
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Interest ................................................................. 13
Table 4: Rates of Success for Dichotomized Outcome Measures................................................... 14
Methods.............................................................................................................................................. 14
Results......................................................................................................................................................... 15
English and Writing GPA ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 1: Mean First Semester English and Writing GPA by SAT ERW Section Score Bands .......... 16
Figure 2: Mean First Semester English and Writing GPA by HSGPA and SAT ERW Section Score
Bands............................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher English and Writing GPA Given HSGPA and SAT ERW
Section Score................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher English and Writing GPA Given HSGPA and SAT ERW
Section Score................................................................................................................................... 19
Reading GPA........................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by SAT Reading Test Score Bands ............................ 20
Figures 6a and 6b: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by SAT Command of Evidence (COE) andRelevant Words in Context (WIC) Subscore Bands......................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score Bands ......... 21
Figure 8: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Reading GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score22
Figure 9: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Reading GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score23
Writing and Language GPA ................................................................................................................. 232

Figure 10: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by SAT Writing and Language Test
Score Bands..................................................................................................................................... 24
Figures 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by SAT
Command of Evidence, Relevant Words in Context, Expression of Ideas, and Standard English
Conventions Subscore Bands .......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 12: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by HSGPA and SAT Writing andLanguage Test Score Bands............................................................................................................. 26
Figure 13: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Writing and Language GPA Given HSGPA and SAT
Writing and Language Test Score ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 14: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Writing and Language GPA Given HSGPA and SAT
Writing and Language Test Score ................................................................................................... 28
Math GPA ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 15: Mean First Semester Math GPA by SAT Math Section Score Bands.............................. 29
Figure 16: Mean First Semester Math GPA by SAT Math Test Score Bands................................... 29
Figure 17: Mean First Semester Math GPA by HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score Bands........... 30
Figure 18: Mean First Semester Math GPA by HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score Bands................ 31
Figure 19: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score. 32
Figure 20: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score ...... 32
Figure 21: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score. 33
Figure 22: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score ...... 34
Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, and Passport to Advanced Math GPAs ......... 34
Figures 23a, 23b, and 23c: Mean First Semester Math Subscore GPAs by SAT Math Subscore
Bands............................................................................................................................................... 35
History/Social Studies GPA ................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 24: Mean First Semester History/Social Studies GPA by SAT Analysis in History/Social
Studies Cross-Test Score Bands ...................................................................................................... 36
Figure 25: Mean First Semester History/Social Studies GPA by HSGPA and SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score Bands ............................................................................... 37
Figure 26: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher History/Social Studies GPA Given HSGPA and SAT
Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score........................................................................ 38
Figure 27: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher History/Social Studies GPA Given HSGPA and SAT
Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score........................................................................ 39
Science GPA ........................................................................................................................................ 393

Figure 28: Mean First Semester Science GPA by SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score Bands 40
Figure 29: Mean First Semester Science GPA by HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test
Score Bands..................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 30: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Science GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science
Cross-Test Score.............................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 31: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Science GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science
Cross-Test Score.............................................................................................................................. 43
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 43
SAT Scores as Independent Measures .................................................................................................... 44
SAT Scores Combined with HSGPA ......................................................................................................... 44
Figure 32: Percentage Increase in Predictive Utility beyond Using HSGPA Alone.......................... 45
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 46
References .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics by Outcome Sample ............................................................................. 48
Table A 1: Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables by Outcome Samples.............................. 48
Appendix B: Correlations between Predictors and Outcomes ................................................................... 49
Table B 1: Adjusted (Raw) Correlations between Predictors and First Semester Outcomes ......... 49

4

Abstract

In May 2019, College Board published the first national operational SAT® validity study on the new SAT
introduced in 2016. Based on data from more than 221,000 students across 169 four-year colleges anduniversities, the study showed that the SAT was essentially as effective as high school grades in
predicting students’ college performance and that these two measures, when combined, offer a moreaccurate understanding of student performance than either measure used alone.
The current study extends the College Board’s validity research on the new SAT. Using data from
221,300 students enrolled at 169 four-year colleges and universities, we examined relationships
between SAT section scores, test scores, cross-test scores, and subscores with domain-specific course
grades earned in college. Results of this study show a strong, positive relationship between SAT scoresand grades in matching college course domains, suggesting that the SAT is sensitive to instruction in
English language arts, math, science, and history/social studies. On their own and combined with highschool GPA (HSGPA), SAT scores provide valuable information for colleges and universities as they makeadmission and course placement decisions. These scores also allow institutions to identify students who
can benefit from additional academic support as they enter college and can inform importantconversations with students about course selection and choice of major based on students’ academic
strengths and weaknesses.

5Introduction

College Board designed the new SAT introduced in 2016 as an academic achievement measure to
identify students’ academic preparedness for postsecondary studies. Specifically, the new SAT reflects
the work that students do in high school, focusing on the core knowledge and skills that research has
shown to be critical for students to be ready for college and career. 1 Scholarly research and empirical
data derived from secondary and postsecondary curriculum surveys conducted by College Board andother organizations, as well as research indicating what is most essential for college readiness andsuccess formed the evidentiary foundation for specifying the test content and domains of interest(College Board, 2017). The SAT includes the Evidence-based Reading and Writing section, the Mathsection, and an optional Essay section. 2
The current study focuses on the SAT section scores, test scores, cross-test scores, and subscores. The
SAT reports two section (domain) scores: (1) Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (ERW), which is thesum of the Reading Test score and the Writing and Language Test score multiplied by 10, and (2) Math,which is the Math Test score multiplied by 20. Each of the two section scores is reported on a scaleranging from 200 to 800. The SAT reports three test scores in the range of 10–40; (1) Reading, (2)Writing and Language, and (3) Math. The SAT reports two cross-test scores in the range of 10–40: (1)Analysis in History/ Social Studies and (2) Analysis in Science, which are based on selected questions in
the SAT Reading, Writing and Language, and Math Tests. The SAT also reports seven subscores for
curricular purposes, to help identify students’ strengths and weaknesses and pinpoint areas ofdevelopment. These subscores, reported in the range of 1-15, include Command of Evidence and Words
in Context (both based on the Reading Test as well as the Writing and Language Test), Expression of
Ideas and Standard English Conventions (both based on the Writing and Language Test), and Heart of
Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, and Passport to Advanced Math (all based on the MathTest).
As noted above, College Board aimed to make the new SAT an assessment that reflects the work thatstudents need to do to be ready for and successful in college and the workplace. The purpose of thisstudy is to seek evidence that the SAT does reflect this work by examining the predictive validity of the
SAT scores in domain-specific courses. The analyses that follow examine the relationships between SAT
section, test, cross-test scores, and subscores with nine corresponding first semester outcomes: English
GPA, Reading GPA, Writing and Language GPA, Math GPA, History/Social Studies GPA, Science GPA,
Heart of Algebra GPA, Problem Solving and Data Analysis GPA, and Passport to Advanced Math GPA.

More information on the development of the SAT can be found in Test Specifications for the Redesigned SAT®
(College Board, 2015) and SAT® Suite of Assessments Technical Manual: Characteristics of the SAT (College Board,2017).
2
Validity evidence for the SAT Essay section can be found in Validity of SAT® Essay Scores for Predicting First-Year
Grades (Marini et al., 2019).
1

6

SAT Score Relationships with First Semester, Domain-Specific
Grades
Methodology
SampleCollege Board broadly recruited four-year institutions with at least 250 first-year students (at least 75 ofwhom had to have SAT scores) to participate in this study. These institutions provided data throughCollege Board’s secure online Admitted Class Evaluation Service (ACES™) system. Ultimately, 169
institutions provided the complete student-level information needed for the analyses that follow in thissection of the report.
Table 1 includes the characteristics of the institutions in the sample and shows that the sample is quite
diverse regarding region of the United States, control (public/private), selectivity, and size. Compared tothe population 3 of four-year institutions for this study, the institutional study sample included more
public institutions, more “selective” institutions, and more “large” and “very large” institutions than thereference population. This is to be expected, as there was a sample size minimum to participate in the
study, and more-selective institutions rather than less-selective institutions would be more apt to use
the SAT and therefore to be interested in examining the relationship between the SAT and college
outcomes.

The population included four-year public or private nonprofit institutions that accepted 90% or fewer applicants
for admission.

3

7

Table 1: Institutional Characteristics of the 2017 SAT Validity Study Sample and Population of FourYear Institutions

U.S. Region

Control
Admittance Rate

Undergraduate Enrollment

Variable
MidwestMid-Atlantic
New England
SouthSouthwest
West
PublicPrivateUnder 25%
25% to 50%
51% to 75%
Over 75%
Small
MediumLarge
Very Large

Sample (k=169)
35 (21%)31 (18%)22 (13%)28 (17%)19 (11%)34 (20%)81 (48%)88 (52%)20 (12%)30 (18%)71 (42%)48 (28%)67 (40%)29 (17%)30 (18%)43 (25%)

Reference Populationof Institutions(k=1,230)
343 (28%)246 (20%)119 (10%)277 (23%)
90 (7%)
155 (13%)417 (34%)813 (66%)
57 (5%)
211 (17%)651 (53%)311 (25%)761 (62%)202 (16%)136 (11%)131 (11%)Note. k = number of institutions. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Undergraduate enrollment was
categorized as follows: small: 4,999 or less; medium: 5,000 to 9,999; large: 10,000 to 19,999; and very large: 20,000 or more.

Inclusion in the study sample required students to have new SAT scores, a valid self-reported high school
GPA (HSGPA), and a valid domain-specific course grade (or grades) supplied by the institution. This
resulted in a sample size of 221,300 students. See Table 2 for more information about the characteristicsof the student sample and the population of 2017 graduating seniors who took the new SAT. Comparedto the population, the study sample, which included students who were enrolled in college, has slightly
more female students, slightly more white students and fewer black or African American students, andmore students whose highest parental education level was a bachelor’s degree or higher than was thecase in the overall SAT-taking population.

8

Table 2: Student Characteristics of the 2017 SAT Validity Study Sample and 2017 Graduating Seniors
with SAT Scores2017 Graduating
Seniors who took
the SAT
SampleVariable(n=221,300)(N=1,715,481)
Male
95,798 (43%)
809,462 (47%)
GenderFemale125,502 (57%)
906,019 (53%)
American Indian or Alaska Native
656 (<1%)
7,782 (<1%)
Asian24,645 (11%)
158,031 (9%)
Black or African American
15,719 (7%)
225,860 (13%)
Hispanic or Latino
46,397 (21%)
408,067 (24%)
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
317 (<1%)
4,131 (<1%)
White
121,961 (55%)
760,362 (44%)
Two or More Races
8,446 (4%)
57,049 (3%)
Not Stated
3,159 (1%)
94,199 (5%)
No High School Diploma
12,653 (6%)
137,437 (8%)
High School Diploma
47,514 (21%)
482,194 (28%)
Associate Degree
15,493 (7%)
134,451 (8%)
Highest Parental
Bachelor's Degree
79,534 (36%)
Education Level
473,103 (28%)
Graduate Degree
62,910 (28%)
339,743 (20%)
Not Stated
3,196 (1%)
148,553 (9%)

Measures

High School GPA (HSGPA). Students’ self-reported HSGPA was obtained from the SAT Questionnaire
when they registered for the SAT and is reported on a 12-point interval scale ranging from 0.00 (F) to
4.33 (A+). Institution-provided HSGPA could not be used in this national study because it is reported onso many different scales across institutions. Note that the inclusion of self-reported HSGPA is consistent
with previous admission test validity studies (e.g. Mattern & Patterson, 2014; Sawyer, 2013), and studies
have found self-reported HSGPA to be highly correlated with actual HSGPA (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas,
2005; Shaw & Mattern, 2009). In the class of 2017, 93% of the SAT-taking population reported their
HSGPA. The HSGPA measure in this study had a sample mean of 3.67 (SD=0.48).
SAT Scores. SAT scores were obtained from College Board’s database and matched to each student
provided in the institution files. The SAT scores included in this study are:SAT Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (ERW) Section Score (200 to 800 scale)—incrementsof 10, sample mean of 596 (SD=83). The ERW section consists of 96 items, 52 from the Reading
Test and 44 from the Writing and Language Test.

9

SAT Math Section Score (200 to 800 scale)—increments of 10, sample mean of 591 (SD=93).
The Math section consists of 58 items. Additional details are provided below under SAT Math
Test Score.
SAT Reading Test Score (10 to 40)—increments of 1, sample mean of 30 (SD=4). The Reading
Test focuses on the assessment of students’ comprehension and reasoning skills in relation toappropriately challenging prose passages (sometimes paired or associated with one or more
informational graphics) across a range of content areas.
SAT Writing and Language Test Score (10 to 40)—increments of 1, sample mean of 30 (SD=4).
The Writing and Language Test focuses on the assessment of students’ revising and editing skillsin the context of extended prose passages (sometimes associated with one or more
informational graphics) across a range of content areas.
SAT Math Test Score (10 to 40)—increments of 0.5, sample mean of 30 (SD=4). The overall aimof the SAT Math Test is to assess students’ fluency with, understanding of, and ability to apply
the mathematical concepts, skills, and practices that are most strongly prerequisite for anduseful across a range of college majors and careers. The Math Test (MTS) scale scores arederived from the rounded Math section scale scores (MSS).
SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score (10 to 40)—increments of 1, sample
mean of 30 (SD=4). SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores are intended to be
used to report on students’ achievement in applying the core skills within Reading, Writing andLanguage, and Math to specific history and social studies contexts.
SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score (10 to 40)—increments of 1, sample mean of 30(SD=4). SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores are intended to be used to report on students’achievement in applying the core skills within Reading, Writing and Language, and Math tospecific science contexts.
SAT Command of Evidence Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 10 (SD=2).
Scores are derived from questions on the Reading Test and the Writing and Language Test.
SAT Words in Context Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 11 (SD=2). Scoresare derived from questions on the Reading Test and the Writing and Language Test.
SAT Expression of Ideas Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 11 (SD=2). Scoresare derived from questions on the Writing and Language Test.
SAT Standard English Conventions Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 10(SD=3). Scores are derived from questions on the Writing and Language Test.
SAT Heart of Algebra Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 10 (SD=2). Scoresare derived from questions on the Math Test.
10

SAT Passport to Advanced Math Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of 10(SD=3). Scores are derived from questions on the Math Test.
SAT Problem Solving and Data Analysis Subscore (1 to 15)—increments of 1, sample mean of
10 (SD=3). Scores are derived from questions on the Math Test.
Domain-Specific First Semester College Grades. Each institution provided domain-specific first semester
course grade values for their 2017 first-time, first-year students. The domain-specific grades across the
169 institutions in this sample ranged from 0.00 to 4.33. Not all students received domain-specificgrades because student course selection varies. For example, students may choose not to take a mathcourse, so they do not have a Math GPA. In most instances, students had one grade for one domain.
However, when students had more than one course grade in a domain, the grades were averaged. GPAs
associated with the three SAT Math subscores (Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, andPassport to Advanced Math) were the narrowest domain-specific outcomes and were almost always
associated with one course grade. Domain-specific grades and information regarding how courses wereselected and assigned to the outcome measures included in the study follow and were arrived at incollaboration with subject matter experts on College Board’s Assessment Design and Development
team.
English and Writing GPA (EWGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using course
grades that were aligned with both the SAT Reading and SAT Writing and Language Tests. Any
course that met the inclusion criteria for Reading GPA or Writing and Language GPA was
included in EWGPA.
Reading GPA (RGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using course grades that werealigned with the SAT Reading Test. General content areas included English, humanities, history,
and the social sciences.
Writing and Language GPA (WLGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using English
and writing course grades that were aligned with the SAT Writing and Language Test. However,foreign and classic language courses were excluded, as were developmental English courses,
English as a second language courses, and business, technical, and scientific writing courses.
Math GPA (MGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using course grades that werealigned with the SAT Math Test. General content areas included mathematics and engineering.
History/Social Studies GPA (H/SSGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using gradesfrom history and social science courses and aligned with relevant content from the SAT Reading
Test, SAT Writing and Language Test, and the SAT Math Test.
Science GPA (SGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using science coursework drawn
from science courses relevant to natural sciences, health sciences, and engineering majors, and11aligned with relevant content from the SAT Reading Test, SAT Writing and Language Test, andthe SAT Math Test.
Heart of Algebra GPA (HOAGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using course gradesin Algebra.
Problem Solving and Data Analysis GPA (PSDGPA)—This outcome measure was constructedusing course grades that were aligned with the SAT Problem Solving and Data Analysis subscore(e.g. Quantitative Analysis/Reasoning courses, Statistics, Probability).
Passport to Advanced Math GPA (PAMGPA)—This outcome measure was constructed using
course grades that were aligned with the SAT Passport to Advanced Math subscore (e.g.
Trigonometry, Algebra, Pre-Calculus).
Dichotomous Measures of Success within a Domain. As noted above, each institution provided college
course work information, including grades, for their 2017 first-time, first-year students. Within each
institution, when there were data for at least 15 students for an outcome of interest, students werecategorized as successful (1) or unsuccessful (0) based on their domain-specific grades. Two outcomes
were used: earning a GPA of 2.50 or higher and earning a GPA of 3.00 or higher. The 2.50 GPA criterion
was selected as a reasonable threshold for indicating that a student is managing to navigate collegelevel work and can remain enrolled and progress through college. The 3.00 GPA criterion was selected as
the second threshold because the average first-year GPA (FYGPA) of students in the national SAT validity
study was 3.03. While average GPA varies across institutions and domains of study, achieving a GPA of
3.00 or higher serves as a general benchmark to ascertain whether students are performing well rather
than just getting by in their studies. This higher criterion measure is particularly relevant for students
considering graduate school, as researchers have noted that students pursuing master’s degrees anddoctoral degrees had mean undergraduate GPAs (UGPAs) of 3.00 and 3.40, respectively, and that few
students admitted to graduate schools had UGPAs below 2.50 (Burton & Wang, 2005).

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 includes descriptive statistics for all measures of interest in the sample and for the 2017 SATtested graduating seniors. As the sample includes students enrolled in college, it is not surprising thatthese students are academically stronger than the total SAT test-taking population across all measures.
Descriptive statistics are reported for all SAT scores utilized in the study analyses: SAT ERW section, SAT
Math section, SAT Reading Test, SAT Writing and Language Test, SAT Math Test, SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies cross-test score, Analysis in Science cross-test score, HSGPA, and domain-specificfirst semester GPAs. Note that not every student completed courses associated with the domain-specific
GPAs in this study, so the number of students varies across the outcome measures.

12

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Interest
2017 Graduating Seniors Who
Took the SAT

Study Sample
MeasureSAT ERW Section Scoren
221,300

Mean
596

SD
83

Min
200

Max
800

N
1,715,481

Mean
533

SD
100

Min
200

Max
800

SAT Math Section Score

221,300

591

93

200

800

1,715,481

527

107

200

800

SAT Reading Test Score
SAT Writing and Language
Test Score
SAT Math Test Score
SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test
Score
SAT Analysis in Science
Cross-Test Score
SAT Command of Evidence
Subscore
SAT Words in Context
Subscore
SAT Expression of Ideas
Subscore
SAT Standard English
Conventions Subscore
SAT Heart of Algebra
Subscore
SAT Problem Solving andData Analysis Subscore
SAT Passport to Advanced
Math Subscore
HSGPA
English and Writing GPA(EWGPA)
Reading GPA (RGPA)
Writing and Language GPA(WLGPA)
Math GPA (MGPA)
History/Social Studies
Cross-Test GPA (H/SSGPA)
Science Cross-Test GPA(SGPA)
Heart of Algebra GPA (HOA
GPA)
Problem Solving and Data
Analysis GPA (PSD GPA)
Passport to Advanced
Math GPA (PAM GPA)

221,300

30

4

10

40

1,715,481

27

5

10

40

221,300

30

4

10

40

1,715,481

26

5

10

40

221,300

30

5

10

40

1,715,481

26

5

10

40

221,300

30

4

10

40

1,715,481

27

5

10

40

221,300

30

4

10

40

1,715,481

27

5

10

40

221,300

10

2

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

11

2

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

11

2

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

10

3

1

15

1,715,481

8

3

1

15

221,300

10

2

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

10

3

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

10

3

1

15

1,715,481

9

3

1

15

221,300

3.67

0.48

0.00

4.33

1,594,136

3.33

0.65

0.00

4.33

189,674

3.05

0.95

0.00

4.33

189,458

3.05

0.95

0.00

4.33

132,609

3.13

0.97

0.00

4.33

138,625

2.73

1.16

0.00

4.33

183,151

2.89

1.00

0.00

4.33

111,554

2.80

1.03

0.00

4.33

10,362

2.49

1.23

0.00

4.33

32,257

2.98

1.07

0.00

4.33

20,491

2.47

1.21

0.00

4.33

13

Note. Not all 2017 graduating seniors who took the SAT reported their HSGPA. Sample sizes varied for the outcome analyses,
but the means and standard deviations for the predictor variables were quite similar across the outcome samples. Additionaldescriptive statistics for the outcome samples are presented in Appendix A, Table A 1.

Table 4 provides the percentages of students who earned GPAs of 2.50 or higher and 3.00 or higher forthe outcome measures aligned with SAT section, test, and cross-test scores. Inclusion in the probabilityof success analyses required institutions to have at least 15 students with the outcome measure ofinterest. Consequently, the number of students (n) included in the analyses differs somewhat from thenumber of students reported in Table 3. Also note that the number of institutions (k) also varies
depending on the analyses. The number of institutions for the WLGPA analyses differs from those for
the English GPA and Reading GPA analyses not only because some institutions did not report course
grades aligned with WLGPA, but for reasons related to grades awarded. Specifically, at some institutions
every student earned a WLGPA of 2.50 or higher, and at some institutions all but one student achieved
the measure of success, which led to the statistical model not converging. These institutions were
excluded from the analyses.
Table 4: Rates of Success for Dichotomized Outcome Measures
GPA ≥ 2.50
First Semester Outcome Measurekn% Successful
EWGPA
168 189,663
78%
RGPA
168 189,447
78%
WLGPA
157 132,284
81%
MGPA
167 138,608
64%
H/SSGPA168 183,141
80%
SGPA
167 111,539
67%

k
168
168
163
167
168
167

GPA ≥ 3.00
n% Successful
189,66367%
189,44767%
132,495
73%
138,60857%
183,14159%
111,539
56%

From Table 4, it is also worth noting that the percentage of students meeting the standard of successvaries considerably across domains. For example, 73% of students at the institutions included in the
Writing and Language analyses earned a GPA of 3.00 or higher but only 64% of students in the Mathanalyses met the lower threshold of earning a GPA of 2.50 or higher

Methods

We conducted three types of analyses in this study. First, we calculated the average outcome GPA
within the corresponding SAT score bands. We used 100-point score bands for section scores and 5point score bands for test and cross-test scores. We then calculated the average GPA for SAT score
bands within HSGPA bands. The average GPAs were calculated across all institutions that had at least 15
students with outcome data. For the subscores, this was the only type of analysis we conducted. 4
We made this decision for two reasons. First, SAT subscores were introduced for curricular purposes, to help
identify students’ strengths and weaknesses and pinpoint areas of development (an especially low score on one
subscore relative to the other subscores may indicate that a student has a weakness in that area and may need414For the second type of analyses, we conducted logistic regression to predict students’ probability ofearning a GPA of 2.50 or higher and a GPA of 3.00 or higher. Logistic regression analyses wereconducted at each institution with at least 15 students with corresponding outcome data. The
institution-level coefficients were weighted by the number of students in the institutional study, andthen mean coefficients from the aggregated weights were calculated. These analyses were conducted
for SAT section, test, and cross-test scores.
Our third type of analyses were correlational analyses between predictors and the outcomes of interest.
Analyses consisted of correlations between the predictors—SAT scores and HSGPA—with the domainspecific GPAs. Raw and adjusted correlations (predictive strength) were calculated between predictors
and each domain-specific GPA at the institution level and weighted by the number of students in each
institutional analysis. The weighted correlations were summed and then divided by the total number ofstudents across institutions. Correlations were adjusted to account for the selectivity of the student
sample. 5 These analyses were conducted for SAT section, test, and cross-test scores. Full correlational
results are presented in Appendix B.

Results

As the focus of the study is on domain-specific college outcomes, results will be presented by outcome
measure (e.g., EWGPA) rather than by type of analysis (e.g., logistic regression results). For each of theoutcomes studied, we present mean GPAs within SAT score bands, followed by mean GPAs by SAT score
bands within HSGPA bands. Next, we present graphs showing students’ probability of success given their
SAT scores and HSGPA, first for achieving a GPA of 2.50 or higher and then for achieving a GPA of 3.00 or

support.) Furthermore, the College Board has consistently called for the use of multiple measures to predict
student outcomes, such as using both SAT scores and high school GPA to predict first-year GPA. As the subscores
are but a portion of the SAT tests, colleges and universities would most likely use SAT sections scores and SAT testscores to predict students’ academic performances because more information is better than less information.
However, we included the subscores in this report to provide evidence that the subscores are valid measures ofknowledge that predicts future academic performance. The second reason was the sake of brevity. Thoughanalyses conducted using the subscores were positive—students with higher subscores earn higher grades—theresults were largely redundant with the results found using the SAT section and test scores. For example, multiple
regression analyses indicated that the joint use of the three math subscores predicted first-semester math GPA as
well as the Math Test alone. Including all the results for the subscore analyses would have lengthened the reportconsiderably without adding substantive information.
5
It is a widely accepted practice to statistically correct correlation coefficients in admission validity research for
restriction of range because the raw correlation tends to underestimate the true relationship between test scoresand college outcome (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, andNational Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). Without information on how students who were notadmitted or those who did not enroll would have performed at an institution, we gain only a glimpse into how thetests work for selection. This restricts the variability, or range, in test scores available for analysis since the testscores available tend to be the higher scores of students who were admitted, minimizing the test score–criterion
relationship. Correlations in this study were corrected for multivariate range restriction (Lawley, 1943) using the2017 graduating seniors who took the SAT as the reference population.

15

higher. We then conclude each section by presenting correlational results, including evidence ofincremental validity of SAT scores beyond the predictive value of HSGPA.

English and Writing GPA

Figure 1 depicts the mean English and Writing GPA (EWGPA) by SAT ERW section score bands. As SAT
ERW scores increase, so do the average EWGPAs. For example, students with SAT ERW section scores
between 400 and 490 had a mean EWGPA of 2.54. In contrast, students with SAT ERW scores between
700 and 800 had a mean EWGPA of 3.39, nearly a full letter grade higher than that for the students
previously mentioned.
Figure 1: Mean First Semester English and Writing GPA by SAT ERW Section Score Bands
4.00

First Semester EWGPA

3.50

3.23
2.94

3.00

2.54

2.50
2.00

3.39

1.91

2.16

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

200-290(n=20)

300-390(n=1,504)

400-490(n=22,391)

500-590(n=71,577)

600-690(n=73,697)

700-800(n=20,485)

SAT ERW Section Score Band
Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Figure 2 communicates the validity of the SAT for predicting EWGPA after controlling for HSGPA. Basedon SAT ERW section score bands within each HSGPA category, the relationship between SAT ERW
section scores and EWGPA remains positive and increases by SAT ERW section score. Note that as
HSGPA increases from C+ or lower to an A+, EWGPA gaps increase between students in the same HSGPA
category but in different SAT ERW section score bands. This is especially true for students in the A-, A,
and A+ HSGPA categories, which contain approximately two-thirds of the students in the sample. For
example, among students with an “A” HSGPA, students with SAT ERW section scores between 400 and
490 had a mean EWGPA of 2.82, but students with SAT ERW section scores between 600 and 690 had amean EWGPA of 3.36, more than half a letter grade higher than the students with scores between 400
and 490 but in the same HSGPA band. At the ERW score-band extremes for “A” students, those with SAT
ERW section scores between 300 and 390 had a mean EWGPA of 2.46, but students with SAT ERW
section scores between 700 and 800 had a mean EWGPA of 3.44, nearly a full letter grade difference.
16

Figure 2: Mean First Semester English and Writing GPA by HSGPA and SAT ERW Section Score Bands

2.87

2.14

300-390 (n=35)
400-490 (n=632)
500-590 (n=4,648)
600-690 (n=10,555)
700-800 (n=5,617)

2.00

2.272.22
2.14
1.99
1.79

3.033.11
2.84
2.56

2.86
2.75
2.65
2.42
2.20

300-390 (n=179)
400-490 (n=3,298)
500-590 (n=17,424)
600-690 (n=26,959)
700-800 (n=9,192)

2.50

2.71
2.55
2.43
2.22
1.98

3.453.50
3.28

3.363.44
3.16

300-390 (n=223)
400-490 (n=4,598)
500-590 (n=19,167)
600-690 (n=20,136)
700-800 (n=3,895)

3.00

3.223.30
3.04

300-390 (n=370)
400-490 (n=5,693)
500-590 (n=15,418)
600-690 (n=9,801)
700-800 (n=1,190)

3.50

B+

A-

A

A+

2.70

2.82
2.46

2.29

2.27

1.50
1.00

300-390 (n=316)
400-490 (n=4,700)
500-590 (n=10,011)
600-690 (n=4,682)
700-800 (n=465)

0.00

300-390 (n=213)
400-490 (n=2,128)
500-590 (n=3,357)
600-690 (n=1,141)
700-800 (n=93)

0.50
300-390 (n=168)
400-490 (n=1,342)
500-590 (n=1,552)
600-690 (n=423)
700-800 (n=33)

First Semester ERWGPA

4.00

C+ or lower

B-

B

HSGPA

Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

As seen in Figure 2 above, combining HSGPA and SAT information reveals additional insights beyond
those possible from HSGPA alone regarding student performance and allows institutions to moreaccurately predict differences in the future academic performances of students with similar HSGPAs.
Figure 3 further demonstrates the value of using SAT ERW section scores with HSGPA to estimate
students’ probabilities of earning an EWGPA of 2.50 or higher in college given their HSGPA and selectSAT ERW scores. If SAT ERW section scores added no information to HSGPA information, there would
only be one curve on the graph, but that is clearly not the case. For example, a student with a HSGPA of
3.00 and an SAT ERW section score of 500 has approximately a 63% chance of earning an EWGPA of 2.50
or higher, while a student with the same HSGPA (3.00) and an SAT ERW section score of 700 has
approximately an 80% chance of earning an EWGPA of 2.50 or higher. Even among students with higher
HSGPAs, we see the added value of the SAT in predicting student success in college. The SAT ERW
section scores provide meaningful information in predicting a student’s probability of earning a 2.50 or
higher EWGPA in college at every point on the HSGPA scale.

17Figure 3: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher English and Writing GPA Given HSGPA and SAT ERW Section
Score
SAT ERW Section Score

Probability of an EWGPA of 2.50 or Higher

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Figure 4 shows students’ probabilities of earning an EWGPA of 3.00 or higher in college given their
HSGPA and select SAT ERW section scores. What stands out in Figure 4 is that, compared to Figure 3, theprobability curves are shifted to the right, and the probabilities of success are lower at every SAT ERW–HSGPA combination than they are when the criterion is achieving an EWGPA of 2.50 or higher. While theprobabilities of success are slightly lower at every HSGPA point for students with high SAT ERW section
scores, the probabilities are much lower for students with low SAT ERW section scores. For example, a
student with a HSGPA of 3.50 and an SAT ERW section score of 700 has an 87% chance of earning an
EWGPA of 2.50 or higher; that same student has an 80% chance of earning an EWGPA of 3.00 or higher,a decrease of seven percentage points. In contrast, a student with a HSGPA of 3.50 and an SAT ERW
section score of 400 has a 64% chance of earning an EWGPA of 2.50 or higher but only a 42% chance of
earning an EWGPA of 3.00 or higher, a decrease of 22percentage points. Even among students withnear-perfect HSGPAs of 4.30, we see sizable differences between students’ probabilities of earning an
EWGPA of 3.00 or higher, ranging from a 94% chance of success for students with SAT ERW section
scores of 800 to only a 36% chance of success for students with SAT ERW section scores of 200.

18

Figure 4: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher English and Writing GPA Given HSGPA and SAT ERW Section
Score
SAT ERW Section Score

Probability of an EWGPA of 3.00 or Higher

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table C 1) between the predictors (SAT ERW section scores and HSGPA) and EWGPA
were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT ERW section scores and HSGPAs increase, so did thestudents’ EWGPAs. The correlations between SAT ERW section scores and HSGPA with EWGPA were .38
and .44, respectively. When used together to predict EWGPA, the multiple correlation for SAT ERW
section scores plus HSGPA was .50, a 14% increase in predictive utility over the use of HSGPA alone. This
indicates that in order to have the most informed understanding of how a student will perform in firstsemester English and writing course work, institutions would benefit from using both HSGPA and SAT
ERW section scores.

Reading GPA

Results for the Reading GPA (RGPA) analyses closely parallel those for the English and Writing (EWGPA).
In Figure 5, students with SAT Reading Test scores between 30 and 34 earned an average RGPA of 3.20,
nearly a full letter grade higher than the average RGPA of students with SAT Reading Test scores
between 15 and 19, which was only 2.22. Figures 6a and 6b show that the two subscores associatedwith the Reading Test as well as the Writing and Language Test (Words in Context and Command of
Evidence) are also positively related to first semester RGPA. This shows the instructional sensitivity ofthe subscores in that performance on the subscores accurately reflects academic performance in analigned domain. When combined with HSGPA data in Figure 7, we again see differences between mean
GPAs for students in different SAT score bands within the same HSGPA category and that these gaps
increase as HSGPA increases. Among the students with HSGPAs of C+ or lower, the difference between
19

students in SAT Reading Test score band 15-19 (mean RGPA = 1.78) and students in the SAT Reading
Test score band of 35-40 (mean RGPA = 2.26) is about a half a letter grade. However, among students in
the A+ HSGPA category, the RGPA difference between students with SAT Reading Test scores between
15 and 19 (mean RGPA = 2.42) and students with SAT Reading Test scores between 35 and 40 (mean
RGPA = 3.49) is a full letter grade.
Figure 5: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by SAT Reading Test Score Bands
4.00

First Semester RGPA

3.50
2.94

3.00

3.36

3.20

2.57

2.50

2.22

1.96

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

10-14
(n=40)

15-19(n=1,646)20-24(n=20,982)

25-29(n=69,487)

30-34(n=70,862)35-40(n=26,441)

SAT Reading Test Score Band
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Figures 6a and 6b: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by SAT Command of Evidence (COE) andRelevant Words in Context (WIC) Subscore Bands
3.50
2.85

3.00
2.50

4.00

Figure 6a

2.15

3.16

3.32

2.47

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

First Semester RGPAFirst Semester RGPA

4.00

Figure 6b

3.50
3.00
2.50

2.21

2.51

2.80

3.13

3.32

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50

1-3
(n=159)4-6(n=8,609)

7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=65,274) (n=81,691) (n=33,725)

Command Of Evidence Score Bands

0.00

1-3
(n=1,019)

4-6(n=9,079)

7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=47,395) (n=97,307) (n=34,658)

Relevant Words in Context Score Bands

20

Figure 7: Mean First Semester Reading GPA by HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score Bands
4.00

2.00

2.742.79
2.64
2.43
2.22

15-19 (n=360)
20-24 (n=4,239)
25-29 (n=9,692)
30-34 (n=5,068)
35-40 (n=797)

2.50

2.72
2.51
2.42
2.21
2.04

15-19 (n=215)
20-24 (n=1,920)
25-29 (n=3,298)
30-34 (n=1,313)
35-40 (n=184)

3.00

15-19 (n=176)
20-24 (n=1,197)
25-29 (n=1,533)
30-34 (n=543)
35-40 (n=68)

First Semester RGPA

3.50

C+ or lower

B-

B

2.26
2.122.19
2.02

3.08
3.00
2.82
2.58

3.28
3.20
3.04
2.73

2.93

2.86
2.51

2.36

2.26

3.443.49
3.29

3.353.42
3.17

2.42

1.78

1.50
1.00

15-19 (n=244)
20-24 (n=4,416)
25-29 (n=18,510)
30-34 (n=19,271)
35-40 (n=5,529)

15-19 (n=211)
20-24 (n=3,292)
25-29 (n=17,044)
30-34 (n=25,028)
35-40 (n=11,399)

15-19 (n=37)
20-24 (n=676)
25-29 (n=4,645)
30-34 (n=9,524)
35-40 (n=6,548)

0.00

15-19 (n=403)
20-24 (n=5,242)
25-29 (n=14,765)
30-34 (n=10,115)
35-40 (n=1,916)

0.50

B+

A-

A

A+

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Results in the probability of RGPA success analyses are similar to the results for EWGPA. In Figure 8, we
can see that SAT Reading Test scores contribute to students’ probabilities of earning an RGPA of 2.50 or
higher at every HSGPA point. The largest contributions of SAT Reading Test scores are at the lower endof the HSGPA scale. For students with HSGPAs of 2.00, the difference in the students’ chances of earningan RGPA of 2.50 or higher range from 16% for students with SAT Reading Test scores of 10 to 64% for
students with SAT Reading Test scores of 40. As HSGPA increases, students’ chances of success increase,and differences in probabilities of success between students with different SAT Reading Test scores
decrease. For example, among students with a HSGPA of 4.30, the chances of earning an RGPA of 2.50
or higher ranges from 70% to 96% for students with SAT Reading Test scores of 10 and 40, respectively.

21

Figure 8: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Reading GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score
SAT Reading Test Score

Probability of an RGPA of 2.50 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

When the criterion is earning an RGPA of 3.00 or higher, the story changes somewhat. In Figure 9, at
every HSGPA point, students’ probabilities of success increase in tandem with increases in their SAT
Reading Test scores. However, the contributions of SAT Reading Test scores are more stable across the
HSGPA score scale than there are when predicting an RGPA of 2.50 or higher. For students with a HSGPA
of 2.00, the chances of earning an RGPA of 3.00 or higher range from 6% to 50% for students with SAT
Reading Test scores of 10 and 40, respectively, a difference of 44 percentage points. For students with a
HSGPA of 4.30, the chances of earning an RGPA of 3.00 or higher range from 46% to 93% for students
with an SAT Reading Test scores of 10 and 40, respectively. This represents a difference of 47
percentage points, which is much larger than the 26 percentage points difference for the same students
when estimating their probability of earning an RGPA of 2.50 or higher (Figure 8).

22Figure 9: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Reading GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Reading Test Score
SAT Reading Test Score

Probability of an RGPA of 3.00 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table B 1) between the predictors (SAT Reading Test scores and HSGPA) and RGPA
were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT Reading Test scores and HSGPAs increased, so did thestudents’ RGPAs. The correlations between SAT Reading Test scores and HSGPA with RGPA were .36 and.44, respectively. When both measures are used together to predict RGPA, the multiple correlation for
SAT Reading Test scores plus HSGPA was .49, an 11% increase over the correlation between HSGPA
alone and RGPA. Whether considered alone or with the results from the other analyses in this section,
this information supports the utility of SAT Reading Test scores in placement decisions for readingintensive coursework.

Writing and Language GPA

Results for the Writing and Language GPA (WLGPA) analyses show a positive relationship between SAT
Writing and Language Test scores and WLGPA. In Figure 10, the mean WLGPA increases as SAT Writing
and Language Test scores increase. Students with SAT Writing and Language Test scores between 35 and40 earned an average WLGPA of 3.45, a full letter grade higher than the mean WLGPA for students withSAT Writing and Language Test scores between 15 and 19. Figures 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d show that thefour subscores associated with the Writing and Language Test are also positively related to firstsemester WLGPA, indicating that performance on the subscores accurately reflects academic
performance in an aligned domain. 6 In Figure 12, this positive relationship between SAT Writing andLanguage Test scores and mean WLGPA can be seen within HSGPA categories as well. This means thatthe scores provide information beyond that provided by HSGPA. If SAT Writing and Language Test scores
6

All four subscores draw upon items from the Writing and Language Test.

23

added no additional information, the mean GPAs within each HSGPA category would be the same. What
we see, in all but one instance, is that within each HSGPA category the students in the higher SAT
Writing and Language Test score bands earned higher mean WLGPAs than did the students in the lower
SAT Writing and Language Test score bands.
Figure 10: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by SAT Writing and Language Test Score
Bands
4.00

First Semester WLGPA

3.50

3.05

3.00
2.50

3.30

3.45

2.73
2.32

2.45

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

10-14
(n=52)

15-19(n=2,264)

20-24(n=17,673)

25-29(n=49,086)

30-34(n=50,813)

35-40(n=12,721)

SAT Writing and Language Test Score Band
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

24

Figures 11a, 11b, 11c, and 11d: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by SAT Command of
Evidence, Relevant Words in Context, Expression of Ideas, and Standard English Conventions Subscore
Bands
Figure 11a

3.00
2.50

2.32

2.64

2.97

3.25

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

4.00

3.39

First Semester WLGPAFirst Semester WLGPA

4.00
3.50

3.00
2.50

0.50

2.50

2.44

2.62

2.94

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

4.00

3.40

2.00

Expression of Ideas Score Bands

4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=7,236) (n=36,396) (n=68,185) (n=19,994)

Figure 11d

3.50
3.00
2.50

2.46

2.74

3.03

3.26

3.41

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=344) (n=7,210) (n=40,523) (n=61,065) (n=23,467)

1-3(n=797)

Relevant Words in Context Subscore Bands

First Semester WLGPAFirst Semester WLGPA

3.00

3.22

3.40

1.00

Command of Evidence Subscore Bands

Figure 11c

2.67

3.22

1.50

0.00

4.00

2.40

2.93

2.00

1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=128) (n=6,903) (n=49,793) (n=56,299) (n=23,467)

3.50

Figure 11b

3.50

1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=1,110) (n=16,135) (n=46,622) (n=48,075) (n=20,667)

Standard English Conventions Score Bands

25

Figure 12: Mean First Semester Writing and Language GPA by HSGPA and SAT Writing and Language
Test Score Bands
4.00

First Semester WLGPA

3.50
2.95

3.00
2.50
2.00

2.252.30
2.14
2.00
1.94

2.65
2.54
2.41
2.29

2.892.91
2.79
2.58
2.46

3.22
3.13
2.99
2.75
2.51

3.313.37
3.16
2.91

3.453.52
3.29
3.01

2.76

2.64

2.56

3.543.59
3.38
3.13

2.24

1.50
1.00

15-19 (n=302)
20-24 (n=1,666)
25-29 (n=2,512)
30-34 (n=1,036)
35-40 (n=83)

15-19 (n=481)
20-24 (n=3,730)
25-29 (n=7,342)
30-34 (n=4,008)
35-40 (n=401)

10-14 (n=15)
15-19 (n=585)
20-24 (n=4,502)
25-29 (n=11,029)
30-34 (n=7,753)
35-40 (n=977)

15-19 (n=360)
20-24 (n=3,684)
25-29 (n=13,089)
30-34 (n=14,302)
35-40 (n=2,817)

15-19 (n=283)
20-24 (n=2,547)
25-29 (n=11,138)
30-34 (n=17,374)
35-40 (n=5,535)

15-19 (n=48)
20-24 (n=503)
25-29 (n=2,736)
30-34 (n=5,939)
35-40 (n=2,881)

0.00

15-19 (n=205)
20-24 (n=1,041)
25-29 (n=1,240)
30-34 (n=401)
35-40 (n=27)

0.50

C+ or lower

B-

B

B+

A-

A

A+

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Turning to the probability of success analyses, SAT Writing and Language Test scores add information at
every HSGPA score point whether estimating students’ likelihood of earning a WLGPA of 2.50 or higher
or earning a WLGPA of 3.00 or higher. In Figure 13, we can see that SAT Writing and Language Test
scores add the most information at the low end of the HSGPA scale. For students with HSGPAs of 2.0,
the chances of earning a WLGPA of 2.50 or higher for students with SAT Writing and Language Test
scores of 10, 20, 30, and 40, are 28%, 41%, 55%, and 68%, respectively. At the higher end of the HSGPA
scale, we see that the probabilities of success are more similar for students with different SAT Writing
and Language Test scores, but the scores still add information above that provided by HSGPA. If SAT
Writing and Language Test scores added no information beyond that of HSGPA, there would be one
probability curve, but that is clearly not the case.

26

Figure 13: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Writing and Language GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Writing
and Language Test Score
SAT Writing and Language Test Score

Probability of a WLGPA of 2.50 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

In Figure 14, we can see that earning a WLGPA of 3.00 or higher is more difficult than earning a WLGPA
of 2.50 or higher and that the amount of information delivered by SAT Writing and Language Test scoresis greater at every HSGPA point than seen in Figure 13. As in Figure 13, the SAT Writing and Language
Test scores add more information at the low end of the HSGPA scale than at the high end, but there areclear differences in the probabilities of success, even for students with HSGPAs of 4.30, depending on
their SAT Writing and Language Test scores.
Figure 14 also highlights the compensatory nature of using multiple measures. At every SAT Writing andLanguage Test score point, there is an HSGPA point where students have approximately a 60%
probability of earning a WLGPA of 3.00 or higher. Students with an SAT Writing and Language Test scoreof 40 and a HSGPA of 2.1 have a 59% probability of success, as do students with an SAT Writing andLanguage Test score of 10 and a HSGPA of 4.0. Similarly, students with an SAT Writing and Language
Test score of 20 and a HSGPA of 3.4 and students with an SAT Writing and Language Test score of 25 anda HSGPA of 3.1 have a 60% probability of success, and students with an SAT Writing and Language Test
score of 30 and a HSGPA of 2.8 and students with an SAT Writing and Language Test score of 35 and a
HSGPA of 2.50 have a 61% probability of success.

27

Figure 14: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Writing and Language GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Writing
and Language Test Score
SAT Writing and Language Test Score

Probability of a WLGPA of 3.00 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table B 1) between the predictors (SAT Writing and Language Test scores and HSGPA)
and WLGPA were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT Writing and Language Test scores and HSGPAs
increased, so did the students’ WLGPAs. The correlations between SAT Writing and Language Test
scores and HSGPA with WLGPA were .31 and .39, respectively. When both measures are used together
to predict WLGPA, the multiple correlation for SAT Writing and Language Test scores plus HSGPA was.43, a 10% increase over the correlation between HSGPA alone and WLGPA. Similar to the otheranalyses, this information supports the utility of SAT Writing and Language Test scores in placement
decisions for writing-intensive course work and indicates that using multiple measures to predict
student performance in writing courses is better than using a single measure.

Math GPA

The relationships between SAT Math scores and math GPAs were positive and among the strongest in
this study. The mean Math GPA (MGPA) analyses by SAT Math section and SAT Math Test score bands,summarized in Figures 15 and 16, show that as SAT Math section and SAT Math Test scores increase, so
do students’ mean first semester MGPAs. In Figure 15, mean MGPAs ranged from 1.63 in the 200 to 290
section score band to 3.21 in the 700 to 800 section score band. Even among students in the 400 to 490
SAT Math section score band, their average MGPA of 2.12 was more than a full letter grade lower than
the students in the 700 to 800 SAT Math section score band (Mean MGPA = 3.21). The same means arefound in Figure 16 for SAT Math Test score bands 20 to 24 and 35 to 40, respectively.
28

Figure 15: Mean First Semester Math GPA by SAT Math Section Score Bands
4.00

First Semester MGPA

3.50
2.96

3.00

2.57

2.50
2.00

3.21

2.12
1.63

1.76

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

200-290(n=29)

300-390(n=1,816)

400-490(n=16,164)

500-590(n=52,942)

600-690(n=45,829)

700-800(n=21,845)

SAT Math Section Score Band

Figure 16: Mean First Semester Math GPA by SAT Math Test Score Bands
4.00

First Semester MGPA

3.50
2.96

3.00

2.57

2.50
2.00

3.21

2.12
1.63

1.76

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

10-14
(n=29)

15-19(n=1,816)20-24(n=16,164)25-29(n=52,942)

30-34(n=45,829)

35-40(n=21,845)

SAT Math Test Score Band
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students. SAT Math Test scores are reported in 0.5 increments. Scores
were rounded down in this figure. For example, the 10-14 score band includes scores between 10.0 and 14.5.

29

Figures 17 and 18 show that SAT Math section scores and SAT Math Test scores, respectively, predict
MGPA after controlling for HSGPA. As shown in the correlational analyses (Table B 1), the strength of
the relationship between SAT Math section scores and Math Test scores and MGPA exceeded that of
the relationship between HSGPA and MGPA. Even for students with an A+ HSGPA, students in the 300
to 390 SAT Math section score band (Figure 17) had an average MGPA of 1.90. The same result is shownin Figure 18 for students with an A+ HSGPA and with scores in the 15 to 19 SAT Math Test score band.
Figure 17: Mean First Semester Math GPA by HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score Bands
4.00

3.00
2.50

2.20
1.95
1.76

1.97
1.681.74
1.45

1.96
1.74
1.50

300-390 (n=412)
400-490 (n=3,336)
500-590 (n=6,823)
600-690 (n=2,534)
700-800 (n=430)

1.50

2.27

300-390 (n=235)
400-490 (n=1,462)
500-590 (n=2,156)
600-690 (n=615)
700-800 (n=106)

2.00

2.62
2.48

2.57

C+ or lower

B-

B

3.10
2.89
2.65

2.93
2.71

2.86

300-390 (n=172)
400-490 (n=818)
500-590 (n=1,008)
600-690 (n=211)
700-800 (n=29)

First Semester MGPA

3.50

2.42
2.08

2.34

2.82

2.46

2.44
2.03

1.90

1.82

3.36
3.20
2.97

3.24
3.09

1.90

1.00

300-390 (n=279)
400-490 (n=3,447)
500-590 (n=14,442)
600-690 (n=12,295)
700-800 (n=4,453)

300-390 (n=197)
400-490 (n=2,453)
500-590 (n=13,592)
600-690 (n=17,277)
700-800 (n=9,787)

300-390 (n=36)
400-490 (n=476)
500-590 (n=4,027)
600-690 (n=7,234)
700-800 (n=5,707)

0.00

300-390 (n=485)
400-490 (n=4,172)
500-590 (n=10,894)
600-690 (n=5,663)
700-800 (n=1,333)

0.50

B+

A-

A

A+

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

30

Figure 18: Mean First Semester Math GPA by HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score Bands
4.00

2.86

2.46

2.44

B+

A-

A

A+

1.97
1.681.74
1.45

1.96
1.74
1.50

15-19 (n=412)
20-24 (n=3,336)
25-29 (n=6,823)
30-34 (n=2,534)
35-40 (n=430)

2.08
1.82

15-19 (n=36)
20-24 (n=476)
25-29 (n=4,027)
30-34 (n=7,234)
35-40 (n=5,707)

2.34

15-19 (n=197)
20-24 (n=2,453)
25-29 (n=13,592)
30-34 (n=17,277)
35-40 (n=9,787)

2.42

2.82

2.20
1.95
1.76

15-19 (n=235)
20-24 (n=1,462)
25-29 (n=2,156)
30-34 (n=615)
35-40 (n=106)

1.50

2.27

3.36
3.20
2.97

3.24
3.09

15-19 (n=279)
20-24 (n=3,447)
25-29 (n=14,442)
30-34 (n=12,295)
35-40 (n=4,453)

2.50
2.00

2.62
2.48

2.57

3.10
2.89
2.65

2.93
2.71

15-19 (n=485)
20-24 (n=4,172)
25-29 (n=10,894)
30-34 (n=5,663)
35-40 (n=1,333)

3.00

15-19 (n=172)
20-24 (n=818)
25-29 (n=1,008)
30-34 (n=211)
35-40 (n=29)

First Semester MGPA

3.50

C+ or lower

B-

B

2.03

1.90

1.90

1.00
0.50
0.00

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Figures 19 and 20 show students’ probabilities of earning an MGPA of 2.50 or higher given their HSGPAs
and SAT Math section scores and Math Test scores, respectively. SAT Math scores clearly add
information at all points across the HSGPA scale, but the compensatory nature of the joint use of testscores and HSGPA is less for MGPA than it is for EWGPA, RGPA, and WLGPA, meaning that students
with low SAT Math scores but high HSGPAs will likely not perform well in college math. For example,
among students with HSGPAs of 4.30, a student with an SAT Math section score of 700 (Figure 19) has
an 88% chance of earning an MGPA of 2.50 or higher, but a student with the same HSGPA (4.30) and an
SAT Math section score of 400 has only a 51% chance of earning an MGPA of 2.50 or higher, the same
likelihood of success as a student with an SAT Math score of 700 and an HSGPA of 2.30.

31

Figure 19: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score
SAT Math Section Score

Probability of an MGPA of 2.50 or Higher

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Figure 20: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score
SAT Math Test Score

Probability of an MGPA of 2.50 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

32

When we look at students’ probabilities of earning an MGPA of 3.00 or higher given their HSGPAs and
SAT Math section scores and Math Test scores, respectively (Figures 21 and 22), we see that SAT Mathscores add information about student math performance across the entire HSGPA scale. This isespecially true at the high end of the HSGPA scale, where differences between chances of success forstudents with HSGPAs of 4.30 range from 16% for students with SAT Math section scores of 200 to 91%
for students with SAT Math section scores of 800 (Figure 21). Among students with an HSGPA of 3.70
(the average HSGPA of students in this sample was 3.68; see Table B 1), students’ chances of earning an
MGPA of 3.00 or higher were 43%, 60%, and 74% for students with SAT Math section scores of 500, 600,
and 700, respectively. While 57% of students earned an MGPA of 3.00 or higher (see Table 4), students
with SAT Math section scores below 500 and HSGPAs below 4.00 have less than a 50% chance ofachieving this measure of success.
Figure 21: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Section Score
SAT Math Section Score

Probability of an MGPA of 3.00 or Higher

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

33

Figure 22: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Math GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Math Test Score
SAT Math Test Score

Probability of an MGPA of 3.00 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table B 1) between the predictors (SAT Math section score or Math Test score and
HSGPA) and MGPA were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT Math section scores or Math Test
scores and HSGPAs increased, so did the students’ MGPAs. The correlations between SAT Math section
scores, SAT Math Test scores, and HSGPA with MGPA were .46, .46, and .45, respectively. When used
together to predict MGPA, the multiple correlation for SAT Math section scores plus HSGPA was .54, a
20% increase over the correlation between HSGPA alone and MGPA.
As mentioned earlier in this report, using multiple measures is better than using just one measure to
predict student academic performance. That is also true when examining student outcomes in college
math courses. However, we want to emphasize that in the case of MGPA, students with low SAT Mathscores but high HSGPAs will likely not perform well in college math. Broadly speaking, students with
low SAT Math scores may need academic support to ensure their success in college math courses.

Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, and Passport to Advanced Math GPAs

In addition to the analyses for MGPA, analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between
the three math subscores – Heart of Algebra, Problem Solving and Data Analysis, and Passport toAdvanced Math – and the three domain-specific GPAs aligned with each of them. Though each subscore34

is but a portion of the SAT Math Test, Figures 23a, 23b, and 23c show that as students’ subscores
increase, so do the aligned, domain-specific GPAs. 7

Figures 23a, 23b, and 23c: Mean First Semester Math Subscore GPAs by SAT Math Subscore Bands
Figure 23a
2.88

3.00
2.50
2.00

2.01

1.95

3.29

2.41

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

1-3
(n=77)

4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=1,444) (n=5,930) (n=2,653) (n=258)

First Semester PAMGPA

4.00

3.00
2.50
2.00

1.92

2.34

2.68

3.10

3.38

1.50
1.00
0.50
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=186) (n=1,980) (n=9,008) (n=14,924) (n=6,159)

Problem Solving and Data Analysis Subscore
Bands

Figure 23c

3.50

2.79

3.00
2.00

Figure 23b

3.50

0.00

Heart of Algebra Subscore Bands

2.50

4.00
First Semester PSDGPAFirst Semester HOAGPA

4.00
3.50

1.78

2.02

3.15

2.35

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
(n=205) (n=2,999) (n=9,972) (n=6,458) (n=857)

Passport to Advanced Math Subscore Bands

History/Social Studies GPA

Figure 24 shows the positive relationship between SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-testscores and first semester History/Social Studies GPA (H/SSGPA), with mean H/SSGPA increasing intandem with SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test score bands. Most students in the sample
scored in the three upper score bands, but the difference between the mean H/SSGPA for students inthe third- highest score band (25 to 29) and the highest score band (35 to 40) was nearly half a letter
grade, 2.75 versus 3.23.

An especially low score on one subscore relative to the other subscores may indicate that a student has aweakness in that area and may need support.

735

Figure 24: Mean First Semester History/Social Studies GPA by SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies
Cross-Test Score Bands
4.00

Fisrt Semester H/SSGPA

3.50

3.07

3.00

2.75

2.50
2.00

3.23

1.95

2.37

2.12

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

10-14
(n=80)

15-19(n=2,148)

20-24(n=18,964)

25-29(n=66,356)

30-34(n=68,980)

35-40(n=26,623)

History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score Band
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Even when controlling for HSGPA, SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores predict
H/SSGPA. As seen in Figure 25, students with higher SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-testscores earn higher mean H/SSGPAs within each HSGPA category. For example, among students with a
HSGPA of “A,” students in the highest SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test score band (3540) earned an average H/SSGPA of 3.29, a full letter grade higher than the average H/SSGPA for students
in the lowest reported SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test score band (15-19).

36

Figure 25: Mean First Semester History/Social Studies GPA by HSGPA and SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score Bands
4.00

2.00

2.68
2.55
2.42
2.22
2.06
1.97

10-14 (n=19)
15-19 (n=475)
20-24 (n=3,838)
25-29 (n=9,273)
30-34 (n=4,640)
35-40 (n=726)

2.50

2.52
2.35
2.17
1.932.01

15-19 (n=268)
20-24 (n=1,660)
25-29 (n=3,179)
30-34 (n=1,171)35-40 (n=162)

3.00

15-19 (n=160)
20-24 (n=995)
25-29 (n=1,478)
30-34 (n=494)
35-40 (n=50)

First Semester H/SSGPA

3.50

C+ or lower

B-

B

2.36
1.992.06
1.691.76

2.94
2.83
2.61
2.34
2.14
2.02

3.053.13
2.86
2.54
2.37

3.223.29
3.02
2.70

3.343.37
3.16
2.85
2.53

2.26

1.50
1.00

15-19 (n=363)
20-24 (n=4,008)
25-29 (n=17,504)
30-34 (n=18,674)
35-40 (n=5,454)

15-19 (n=258)
20-24 (n=3,096)
25-29 (n=16,275)
30-34 (n=24,668)
35-40 (n=11,698)

15-19 (n=55)
20-24 (n=611)
25-29 (n=4,526)
30-34 (n=9,733)
35-40 (n=6,696)

0.00

10-14 (n=21)
15-19 (n=569)
20-24 (n=4,756)
25-29 (n=14,121)
30-34 (n=9,600)
35-40 (n=1,837)

0.50

B+

A-

A

A+

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Figure 26 shows students’ probabilities of earning an H/SSGPA of 2.50 or higher based on their SAT
Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores and HSGPAs. Comparable to what was seen in theanalyses for other SAT measures, SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores add
information at every point on the HSGPA scale. For example, among students with an HSGPA of 3.00,
the chances of earning an H/SSGPA of 2.50 or higher with SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies crosstest scores of 15, 25, and 35 are 28%, 50%, and 72%, respectively. Toward the upper end of the HSGPA
scale, these gaps decrease, but the differences remain considerable. Among students with an HSGPA of
3.70 (the average HSGPA of students in this sample was 3.66), the chances of earning an H/SSGPA of
2.50 or higher with SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores of 15, 25, and 35 are 47%,69%, and 85%, respectively.

37

Figure 26: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher History/Social Studies GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score
SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score

Probability of an H/SSGPA of 2.50 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Figure 27 shows students’ probabilities of earning an H/SSGPA of 3.00 or higher based on their SAT
Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores and HSGPAs. The cross-test scores add information at
every point on the HSGPA scale, but relative to the probabilities seen in Figure 26, the curves are shiftedto the right and downward. Among students with an HSGPA of 3.70, the chances of earning an H/SSGPA
of 3.00 or higher with SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores of 15, 25, and 75, were25%, 51%, and 76%, respectively. When compared to their chances of earning a H/SSGPA of 2.50 or
higher (see Figure 26), these are decreases of 22 percentage points, 18 percentage points, and 9
percentage points, respectively. This suggests that students with lower SAT Analysis in History/Social
Studies cross-test scores face a greater challenge when trying to make the leap from performing wellenough to pass (i.e., earn up to a 2.50) to performing as well as (or better than) the majority of theirclassmates (i.e., earning a 3.00 or higher).

38

Figure 27: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher History/Social Studies GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score
SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross-Test Score

Probability of an H/SSGPA of 3.00 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table B 1) between the predictors (SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-testscore and HSGPA) and H/SSGPA were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT Analysis in History/Social
Studies cross-test scores and HSGPAs increased, so did the students’ H/SSGPAs. The correlations
between SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies cross-test scores and HSGPA with H/SSGPA were .40 and.46, respectively. When used together to predict H/SSGPA, the multiple correlation for SAT Analysis in
History/Social Studies cross-test scores plus HSGPA was .54, a 17% increase over the correlation
between HSGPA alone and H/SSGPA. Taken together with the results from the probability of successanalyses, this suggests that students with lower HSGPAs and/or lower Analysis in History/Social
Studies cross-test scores may find it challenging to earn high grades in college history/social studies
courses. This information should be useful in advising conversations about course work and selectionof major.

Science GPA

Figure 28 shows the positive relationship between SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores and firstsemester Science GPA (SGPA), with mean SGPA increasing in tandem with SAT Analysis in Science crosstest score bands. Students with SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores between 30 and 34 earned anaverage SGPA of 3.26, more than a full letter grade higher than the average SGPA of students with SAT
Analysis in Science cross-test scores between 15 and 19, which was 2.10. When combined with the
HSGPA data in Figure 29, differences in mean SGPA for students in different SAT score bands generally
persist within the each HSGPA category. The largest differences in performance were within the “A”
39

HSGPA category, with mean SGPAs ranging from 1.93 for students in the lowest reported SAT Analysis in
Science cross-test score band (15-19) to 3.30 for students in the highest SAT Analysis in Science crosstest score band (35-40). These results indicate that SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores add to theprediction of students’ performance in first semester science courses even when the students have thesame HSGPAs and even when those HSGPAs are quite high.
Figure 28: Mean First Semester Science GPA by SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score Bands
4.00

First Semester SGPA

3.50

3.26
2.92

3.00
2.52

2.50
2.00

1.84

2.10

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

15-19
(n=503)20-24(n=7,912)

25-29(n=33,445)

30-34(n=48,720)35-40(n=20,962)

SAT Analysis in Science Cross Test Score Band
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

40

Figure 29: Mean First Semester Science GPA by HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score
Bands
4.00

First Semester SGPA

3.50
3.00

2.70

2.50
2.00
1.50

2.25
1.97
1.691.70
1.49

2.13
1.91
1.73

2.90
2.56
2.39
2.15
1.90
1.75

2.64
2.34
1.962.00

3.30
3.05

3.08
2.86
2.58
2.22
1.95

2.75

3.43
3.20
2.91
2.512.48

2.37
1.93

1.29

1.00

15-19 (n=23)
20-24 (n=377)
25-29 (n=2,798)
30-34 (n=7,916)
35-40 (n=5,947)

B

15-19 (n=69)
20-24 (n=1,486)
25-29 (n=9,368)
30-34 (n=18,932)
35-40 (n=9,417)

B-

15-19 (n=104)
20-24 (n=1,873)
25-29 (n=9,249)
30-34 (n=12,705)
35-40 (n=3,874)

15-19 (n=99)
20-24 (n=1,351)
25-29 (n=3,847)
30-34 (n=2,575)
35-40 (n=449)

C+ or lower

15-19 (n=131)
20-24 (n=1,966)
25-29 (n=6,547)
30-34 (n=5,811)
35-40 (n=1,173)

15-19 (n=49)
20-24 (n=571)
25-29 (n=1,164)30-34 (n=581)
35-40 (n=78)

0.00

15-19 (n=28)
20-24 (n=288)
25-29 (n=472)
30-34 (n=200)
35-40 (n=24)

0.50

B+

A-

A

A+

HSGPA
Note. Results are reported for categories with at least 15 students.

Figure 30 further illustrates the value of using SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores in conjunction
with HSGPA to predict students’ likelihood of success in first semester science courses. Though 67% of
the sample earned an SGPA of 2.50 or higher, students with an HSGPA of 4.30 and an SAT Analysis in
Science cross-test score of 20 had just a 50% chance of earning an SGPA of 2.50 or higher, whilestudents with the same HSGPA (4.30) and lower SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores had even lower
probabilities of success. By contrast, students with the same HSGPA (4.30) and an SAT Analysis in
Science cross-test score of 30 had a 79% chance of meeting this standard of success. Closer to theaverage HSGPA of the students in this sample (3.75), students with an HSGPA of 3.70 and SAT Analysis in
Science cross-test scores of 15, 25, and 35 have 21%, 51%, and 80% chances, respectively, of earning an
SGPA of 2.50 or higher.

41

Figure 30: Probability of a 2.50 or Higher Science GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science CrossTest Score
SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score

Probability of an SGPA of 2.50 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Figure 31 shows that when the standard of success is raised to earning an SGPA of 3.00 or higher, thevalue of SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores increases as HSGPA increases. For students with an
HSGPA of 3.30 and SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores of 10, 20, 30, and 40, their chances of
earning an SGPA of 3.00 or higher are 5%, 16%, 43%, and 75%, respectively. Moving up a full letter gradeon the HSGPA scale, students with an HSGPA of 4.30 and SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores of 10,
20, 30, and 40 have chances of 13%, 36%, 69%, and 90%, respectively, of earning an SGPA of 3.00 or
higher. These results highlight the differences in probabilities of success for students with the same
HSGPAs but different SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores. While the figure shows that students’probabilities of success increase with higher HSGPAs, it also shows that high HSGPAs alone do not
ensure high probabilities of success. Students with SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores below 25
have less than a 50% chance of earning an SGPA of 3.00 or higher regardless of how high their HSGPAs
are.

42

Figure 31: Probability of a 3.00 or Higher Science GPA Given HSGPA and SAT Analysis in Science CrossTest Score
SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score

Probability of an SGPA of 3.00 or Higher

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

HSGPA

Correlations (see Table B 1) between the predictors (SAT Analysis in Science cross-test score and HSGPA)
and SGPA were positive, meaning that as students’ SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores and HSGPAs
increased, so did the students’ SGPAs. The correlations between SAT Analysis in Science cross-testscores and HSGPA with SGPA were .48 and .49, respectively. When both measures are used together topredict SGPA, the multiple correlation for SAT Analysis in Science cross-test scores plus HSGPA was .57, a
16% increase over the correlation between HSGPA alone and SGPA. These results reinforce the message
that it is better to use multiple predictors than to use HSGPA or test scores alone. Taken together withresults from the probability of success analyses, we find support for the utility of SAT Analysis in
Science cross-test scores in college placement considerations and advising conversations aroundscience course work and selection of major.

Discussion

The redesigned SAT, introduced in 2016, was intended to provide insights into multiple areas of student
academic achievement. It is not a single measure. Students who take the SAT receive two section scores,
three test scores, seven subscores, and two cross-test scores. This large-scale national study exploredthe relationships between these SAT measures and student performance in multiple corresponding
domains of academic study.
The results of this study show that SAT section, test, cross-test, and subscores are useful in predicting
student performance in the matching academic domain—on their own and in conjunction with HSGPA.
43

Moreover, the positive relationships between the studied SAT section, test, subscore, and cross testscores and grades earned in corresponding college course domains indicate that the SAT is sensitive to
instruction in English language arts, math, science, and history/social studies.

SAT Scores as Independent Measures

For all nine outcomes, as SAT score bands increased, so did the mean domain-specific GPAs in a stairstep fashion. Students with higher SAT scores earned higher GPAs on average across all nine domainspecific outcomes, including those aligned with single subscores. The correlational results for thesection, test, and cross-test scores corroborated those graphs, again indicating that higher scores wereassociated with higher grades. 8

SAT Scores Combined with HSGPA

Though SAT scores and HSGPA all had positive relationships with the domain-specific outcomes alignedwith section, test, and cross-test scores, the joint use of SAT scores and HSGPA improved the predictionof student performance in that domain. The three types of analyses in this report provided evidence ofthe benefits of using multiple measures to predict student performance.
Mean GPA across SAT Score Bands. After controlling for HSGPA, we clearly observed that students’mean GPAs increased as SAT scores increased. 9 If SAT scores added nothing to the prediction of theexamined domain-specific GPAs, within each level or category of HSGPA the mean GPA within each SAT
score band would have been identical, and we would not see that stair-step increase in mean GPA witheach increase in SAT score band.
Probabilities of Success. At every point across the HSGPA scale, students with higher SAT scores had
higher probabilities of earning a GPA of 2.50 or higher and earning a GPA of 3.00 or higher. If SAT scores
added nothing to HSGPA, there would have been a single curve in each figure associated with theprobability analyses. Rather than a single curve, we saw clear differentiation between the probabilities
of success for students with the same HSGPA but different SAT scores. Using SAT scores in conjunction
with HSGPA in a compensatory model helps institutions predict a student’s likelihood of succeeding inResults for analyses with subscores as predictors were limited in this report because they were largely redundantwith the results found using the SAT section and test scores. That is, there were positive relationships between thesubscores and the outcomes of interest, and when multiple subscores were used together as predictors the results
were very similar to those using the test and section scores as predictors. Which SAT scores educators andresearchers choose to employ should depend upon the particular use and/or decision to be made based on thescore. Large differences between subscores associated with a test may indicate that a student has a weakness inthat narrower domain and may need support.
9
There were two instances where – within a single HSGPA category – students in an SAT score band earned alower mean GPA than did students in the lower SAT score band or students in a lower SAT score band earned ahigher GPA than did students in the next higher score band. In both cases, the number of students within the scoreband with an aberrant mean GPA was less than 30, and these students had discrepant scores – either high SAT
score and low HSGPA, or high HSGPA and low SAT score. These aberrant patterns were seen in Figure 12 (WLGPA
for HSGPA category C+ or lower and SAT Writing and Language Test score band 35-40, n = 27) and in Figure 29(SGPA, HSGPA category A+ and Analysis in Science score band 15-19, n = 23). This may happen when sample sizes
are small and/or students come from different institutions with different grading standards.
844

college despite having a low level of performance on either of the two predictors. While thiscompensation generally worked both ways, we want to emphasize that for math and science grades,
having a high HSGPA did not fully compensate for a low SAT Math scores.
Correlations. For all outcomes examined, the correlational analyses revealed that the multiple
correlations for SAT scores and HSGPA with the domain-specific GPAs were higher than the correlations
for single measures—SAT score or HSGPA—with the domain-specific GPAs. Multiple correlations for SAT
scores and HSGPA with the domain-specific GPAs ranged from .43 (WLGPA) to .57 (SGPA). These aremoderate to large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988).
Figure 32 further illustrates the advantage of using multiple measures rather than HSGPA or SAT scoresalone. Using the correlations from this report (Table B 1), we can calculate the percentage increase inutility of using both SAT scores and HSGPA versus using HSGPA alone to predict the domain-specific
GPAs. For example, the multiple correlation between SAT Math section scores and HSGPA with Math
GPA was .54, a 20% increase beyond the correlation between HSGPA and Math GPA, .45. Regardless ofwhich single predictor had the stronger relationship with the corresponding domain-specific GPA, thejoint use of SAT scores and HSGPA provides more information.
Figure 32: Percentage Increase in Predictive Utility beyond Using HSGPA AloneEWGPA: SAT ERW Section + HSGPA

14%

RGPA: SAT Reading Test + HSGPA11%WLGPA: SAT Writing and Language Test + HSGPA

10%

MGPA: SAT Math Section + HSGPA

20%

MGPA: SAT Math Test + HSGPA

22%

H/SSGPA: SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies Cross…

17%

SGPA: SAT Analysis in Science Cross Test + HSGPA

16%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Note: Percentages calculated using the rounded correlations presented in Table B1.

The value of multiple measures is an outcome worth repeating. All three types of analyses show that agreater understanding of students’ academic performance can be gained when using SAT scores and
HSGPA together. Perhaps the most important takeaway from this study is that understanding student
capabilities in particular academic areas can help higher education institutions target instructional
support to ensure student success or accurate course placement. This is critical because academic
performance is the best predictor of student retention (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) and a strong
predictor of degree completion (Adelman, 2006).

45

Conclusion

Findings from the current study validate the alignment between SAT section, test, subscores, and crosstest scores with student performance in multiple domains of academic course work. The SAT measures
studied had positive relationships with nine different domains of academic knowledge, demonstrating
the value and effectiveness of SAT scores as tools for postsecondary institutions to use to inform
decisions related to admission, course placement, and course/major field advising. Moreover,institutions may utilize this information to direct instructional supports and interventions to students
who may need them to be successful in their academic endeavors. This study finds that
•
•

•
•

SAT scores are strongly predictive of college performance: students with higher SAT scores are
more likely to have higher college grades across multiple academic domains.
SAT scores and HSGPA are both related to performance in the academic domains but tend tomeasure slightly different aspects of academic preparation. Using SAT scores in conjunction withHSGPA is the most powerful way to predict future academic performance.
o On average, SAT scores add 15% more predictive power above using HSGPA alone to anunderstanding how students will perform in multiple academic domains.
o SAT Math scores add about a 20% increase in predictive power above HSGPA alone, andwe observe that high HSGPAs in the absence of strong SAT Math performance cannot
compensate for the lower SAT performance in that domain with regard to first semester
Math GPA.
o SAT scores help further differentiate student performance in academic domains within
narrow HSGPA ranges.
Colleges can use SAT scores to identify students who may need academic support before they
start college.
Colleges can use SAT scores to inform advising conversations with students about course workand selection of major.

College Board will continue to maintain a robust and ongoing national SAT validity research agenda,
which will include the study of SAT score relationships with performance, as well as with longerterm outcomes, including degree completion. College Board also provides a free online service forhigher education institutions and systems (Admitted Class Evaluation Service, ACES) to conduct
campus or system-specific validity studies (with outcomes such as FYGPA, course grades, retention,completion) that meet their specific institutional needs.

46

References

Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School ThroughCollege. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council
on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
Washington, DC: AERA.
Burton, N. W. & Wang, M. (2005). Predicting long-term success in graduate school: A collaborative
validity study (GRE Board Report No. 99-14R; ETS RR-05-03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
College Board. (2015). Test Specifications for the Redesigned SAT®. New York: College Board.
College Board. (2017). SAT® Suite of Assessments Technical Manual: Characteristics of the SAT. New
York: College Board.
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point average, classranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 75, 63-82.
Lawley D. N. (1943). A note on Karl Pearson's selection formulae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh., 62(Section A, Pt. 1), 28-30.
Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Young, L., Shmueli, D., Shaw, E. J., & Ng, H. (2019). Validity of SAT® Essay
Scores for Predicting First-Year Grades (College Board Research Report). New York: College
Board.
Mattern, K. D., & Patterson, B. F. (2014). Synthesis of recent SAT validity findings: Trend data over timeand cohorts (College Board Research in Review 2014-1). New York: The College Board.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sawyer, R. (2013). Beyond correlations: Usefulness of High School GPA and Test Scores in Making
College Admissions Decisions. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(2), 89-112.
Shaw, E. J., & Mattern, K. D. (2009). Examining the Accuracy of Self-Reported High School Grade Point
Average (Research Report 2009-5). New York: College Board.

47

Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics by Outcome Sample
Table A 1: Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables by Outcome Samples

MeasureSAT ERW Section Score
SAT Math Section Score
SAT Reading Test Score
SAT Writing and Language Test Score
SAT Math Test Score
SAT Analysis in History/ Social Studies Cross-Test Score
SAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test Score
HSGPA
Outcome GPA

English GPA(n=189,674)

Reading GPA(n=189,458)

Writing andLanguage GPA(n=132,609)

Math GPA(n=138,625)

History/Social
Studies GPA(n=183,151)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

592
586
30
30
29
30
30
3.65
3.05

82
92
4
4
5
4
4
0.48
0.95

592
586
30
30
29
30
30
3.65
3.05

82
92
4
4
5
4
4
0.48
0.95

582
578
29
29
29
29
29
3.60
3.13

80
91
4
4
5
4
4
0.48
0.97

596
597
30
30
30
30
30
3.68
2.73

82
93
4
4
5
4
4
0.47
1.16

593
586
30
30
29
30
30
3.66
2.89

82
92
4
4
5
4
4
0.47
1.00

Science GPA(n=111,554)
Mean
607

SD
79

607

90

30

4

30

4

30

4

30

4

31

4

3.75

0.44

2.80

1.03

48

Appendix B: Correlations between Predictors and Outcomes
Table B 1: Adjusted (Raw) Correlations between Predictors and First Semester OutcomesFirst Semester
Outcome(k, n)

Predictors
SAT ERW Section+ HSGPAHSGPASAT ERW Section

Adjusted(Raw)
Correlations.50 (.34).44 (.27).38 (.23)

Incremental
Validity of
SAT.06% IncreasebeyondHSGPA
14%Reading GPA(k=168; n=189,447)

SAT Reading Test + HSGPAHSGPASAT Reading Test

.49 (.33).44 (.27).36 (.20)

.05

11%

Writing and Language
GPA(k=165; n=132,571)

SAT Writing and Language Test +
HSGPA
HSGPA
SAT Writing and Language Test

.43 (.29)

.04

10%

Math GPA(k=167; n=138,608)

SAT Math Section + HSGPAHSGPASAT Math Section.54 (.37).45 (.26).46 (.29)

.09

20%

Math GPA(k=167; n=138,608)

SAT Math Test + HSGPAHSGPASAT Math Test

.55 (.37).45 (.26).46 (.29)

.10

22%

History and Social
Studies GPA(k=168; n=183,141)

SAT Analysis in History/Social Studies
Cross-Test + HSGPAHSGPASAT Analysis in History/Social Studies
Cross-Test.54 (.37)

.08

17%

Science GPA(k=168; n=111,554)

SAT AIS Cross-Test + HSGPAHSGPASAT Analysis in Science Cross-Test

.08

16%

English and Writing
GPA(k=168; n=189,663).39 (.25).31 (.17).46 (.29).40 (.24).57 (.38).49 (.27).48 (.29)© 2020 College Board. College Board, SAT, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of College Board. All other marks are theproperty of their respective owners. Visit College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

49

About the College Board

The College Board is a mission-driven not-for-profit organization that connects students to college
success and opportunity. Founded in 1900, the College Board was created to expand access to higher
education. Today, the membership association is made up of over 6,000 of the world’s leading
educational institutions and is dedicated to promoting excellence and equity in education. Each year,
the College Board helps more than seven million students prepare for a successful transition to college
through programs and services in college readiness and college success—including the SAT® and theAdvanced Placement Program®. The organization also serves the education community through research
and advocacy on behalf of students, educators, and schools.
For further information, visit www.collegeboard.org.
© 2020 The College Board. College Board, Advanced Placement Program, SAT, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College
Board. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. Visit the College Board on the web: collegeboard.org.

50