[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-585964-105":59,"doc-detail-585964-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","college-ranking-systems-a-methodological-review-final-report","College Ranking Systems - A Methodological Review - Final Report","","Final Report (September 2024) delivers a methodological review of college ranking systems, presented by NORC at the University of Chicago for Vanderbilt University. The report examines constructs and definitions of “college” and “ranking,” then evaluates construct validity, including content validity, criterion validity, measurement invariance, and scale reliability. It also reviews data quality issues and data sources such as IPEDS, College Scorecard, surveys, vendors, public sources, and institution disclosures, followed by an assessment of specific measures and methodologies.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/college-ranking-systems-a-methodological-review-final-report/585964/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/college-ranking-systems-a-methodological-review-final-report/585964.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jordan Avery","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the report focus on in college ranking systems?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It focuses on how college ranking systems are conceptualized and whether they meet construct validity requirements, including content validity, criterion validity, measurement invariance, and scale reliability.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which data quality problems are reviewed?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The report reviews data quality issues such as proxy measures, missing data, data lag, total survey error, simple aggregation, and lack of documentation.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What data sources and measures does the report examine?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It reviews data sources including IPEDS, College Scorecard, surveys, third-party vendors, other public sources, and direct disclosure from institutions, and it evaluates measures such as graduation rates, student debt, value-added earnings, fellowships, and financial resources.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},585964,1792231724,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882367,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","FINAL REPORT  \nSeptember 2024  \nCollege Ranking Systems:  \nA Methodological Review  \nPresented by:  \nNORC at the University of Chicago  \nSoubhik Barari, Ph. D.  \nEric Newsom, M.S. Ed. Ji Eun Park, Ph. D.  \nSusan M Paddock, Ph. D.  \nAuthors also thank colleagues from NORC, Norman Bradburn and Debra Stewart who provided insight and expertise for this report.  \nPresented to:  \nVanderbilt University Darren Reisberg, J.D. Olivia Kew-Fickus, M. B.A.  \nTable of Contents  \nAbout NORC ................................................................................................................................. 3  \nExecutive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 3  \n1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6  \n1.1. Illustrative College Ranking Systems ..................................................................................................... 7  \n1.2. Components of College Ranking Systems ............................................................................................. 8  \n2. Background: Construct Validity .............................................................................................. 9  \n3. Review: Conceptualization.................................................................................................... 11  \n3.1. Differing Definitions of “College”...................................................................................................... 11  \n3.2. Ambiguous Characterizations of “Ranking”..................................................................................... 13  \n3.3. Lack of Content Validity.................................................................................................................... 14  \n3.4. Lack of Criterion Validity .................................................................................................................. 15  \n3.5. Lack of Measurement Invariance ..................................................................................................... 16  \n3.6. Lack of Scale Reliability .................................................................................................................... 16  \n3.7. Formative vs. Reflective Constructs................................................................................................. 17  \n4. Review: Data ........................................................................................................................ 18  \n4.1. Data Quality Issues ............................................................................................................................... 19  \n4.1.1. Proxy Measures ............................................................................................................................ 19  \n4.1.2. Missing Data................................................................................................................................. 19  \n4.1.3. Data Lag ....................................................................................................................................... 20  \n4.1.4. Total Survey Error ......................................................................................................................... 21  \n4.1.5. Simple Aggregation ...................................................................................................................... 21  \n4.1.6. Lack of Documentation ................................................................................................................ 22  \n4.2. Review of Data Sources........................................................................................................................ 22  \n4.2.1. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) ........................................................ 22  \n4.2.2. College Scorecard ....","cbCainpcxrKJuZkj","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainpcxrKJuZkj","pdf",1298469,62,"English","# About NORC\n# Executive Summary\n# 1. Introduction\n## 1.1. Illustrative College Ranking Systems\n## 1.2. Components of College Ranking Systems\n# 2. Background: Construct Validity\n# 3. Review: Conceptualization\n## 3.1. Differing Definitions of “College”\n## 3.2. Ambiguous Characterizations of “Ranking”\n## 3.3. Lack of Content Validity\n## 3.4. Lack of Criterion Validity\n## 3.5. Lack of Measurement Invariance\n## 3.6. Lack of Scale Reliability\n## 3.7. Formative vs. Reflective Constructs\n# 4. Review: Data\n## 4.1. Data Quality Issues\n## 4.2. Review of Data Sources\n## 4.3. Review of Specific Measures\n# 5. Review: Methodologies","[{\"question\":\"What does the report focus on in college ranking systems?\",\"answer\":\"It focuses on how college ranking systems are conceptualized and whether they meet construct validity requirements, including content validity, criterion validity, measurement invariance, and scale reliability.\"},{\"question\":\"Which data quality problems are reviewed?\",\"answer\":\"The report reviews data quality issues such as proxy measures, missing data, data lag, total survey error, simple aggregation, and lack of documentation.\"},{\"question\":\"What data sources and measures does the report examine?\",\"answer\":\"It reviews data sources including IPEDS, College Scorecard, surveys, third-party vendors, other public sources, and direct disclosure from institutions, and it evaluates measures such as graduation rates, student debt, value-added earnings, fellowships, and financial resources.\"}]","College Ranking Systems - A Methodological Review - Final Report | PDF",1792056463,156]