[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-182837-105":59,"doc-detail-182837-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","curtis-smith-2020-article-a-comparison-of-undergraduate-outcomes","Curtis-Smith 2020 Article - A Comparison of Undergraduate Outcomes","","A Comparison of Undergraduate Outcomes analyzes how student background variables and admission-related measures relate to performance outcomes. Reported results include cross-tabulated factors such as sex, ethnicity, disability status, school type, parental education, POLAR participation levels, and socioeconomic indicators (IMD and SEC), with statistical association tests. Additional analyses summarize differences in academic metrics (A level points and UCAT scores) and model relationships using standardized measures (EPM Normal Deviate score) with regression coefficients, significance levels, and confidence intervals, supporting which predictors show robust associations.",{"@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/curtis-smith-2020-article-a-comparison-of-undergraduate-outcomes/182837/",{"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/curtis-smith-2020-article-a-comparison-of-undergraduate-outcomes/182837.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jake","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Which student and school factors are tested for association with outcomes?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The analysis tests variables including sex, ethnicity groups, disability status, school type (HESA), parental education, local area participation (POLAR), IMD deprivation, socioeconomic classification (SEC), and UCAT bursary.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How are academic attainment and admission measures represented in the study?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Academic attainment uses A level total points and a Z-score based on the best three A-levels within a qualification year, while admission measures use UCAT total scores and UCAT Z-scores derived from the admission-year distribution.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What modeling approach is used to relate predictors to the EPM Normal Deviate score?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The study reports regression models that provide unstandardized coefficients, standardized beta values, t statistics, significance (Sig.), and 95% confidence intervals for predictors such as SEMED, institution indicators, and standardized UCAT and A-level variables.","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},182837,1788350145,{"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":52,"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":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","| \u003Cbr>Fig. 1 Flow of data through the study |  |\n| --- | --- |\n\n\n| Factor | Category | Gateway N (%) | SEMED\u003Cbr>N (%) | Test of association |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |  | Χ2 | P – Bonferroni correction applied |\n| Sex | Male | 250 (44.4) | 1610 | 0.65 | 1 |\n| Ethnicity groups | Female\u003Cbr>BME\u003Cbr>White\u003Cbr>Missing | 310 (55.6)\u003Cbr>365 (65.2)\u003Cbr>195 (34.6)\u003Cbr>0 | (42.5)\u003Cbr>2175\u003Cbr>(57.5)\u003Cbr>1595\u003Cbr>(42.2)\u003Cbr>2160\u003Cbr>(57.1)\u003Cbr>30 (0.7) | 105.1 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| Disability | Not known | 535 (95.9) | 3500\u003Cbr>(92.5) | 8.08 | 0.04 |\n| School Type (HESA) | 1 or more recorded by HESA From state-funded school | 25 (4.1)\u003Cbr>515 (92.5) | 285 (7.5)\u003Cbr>2285\u003Cbr>(60.4) | 220.4 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| Parental Education (at Higher Education) | Privately funded school\u003Cbr>Missing\u003Cbr>No\u003Cbr>Yes | 20\u003Cbr>25 (4.1)\u003Cbr>315 (56.6)\u003Cbr>175 (31.7) | 970 (25.6)\u003Cbr>530 (14.0)\u003Cbr>690 (18.3)\u003Cbr>2685\u003Cbr>(71.0) | 422.5 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| Participation of local areas (POLAR) | Unknown\u003Cbr>1\u003Cbr>2\u003Cbr>3\u003Cbr>4\u003Cbr>5\u003Cbr>Missing | 65 (11.6)\u003Cbr>55 (9.50)\u003Cbr>100\u003Cbr>(18.10)\u003Cbr>150 (26.7)\u003Cbr>120 (21.9)\u003Cbr>115 (20.4)\u003Cbr>20 | 405 (10.8)\u003Cbr>135 (3.6)\u003Cbr>260 (6.9)\u003Cbr>485 (12.8)\u003Cbr>855 (22.6)\u003Cbr>1555\u003Cbr>(41.1)\u003Cbr>490 (13.0) | 268.0 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| Index of multiple deprivation (IMD) | 1-Most deprived 2\u003Cbr>3\u003Cbr>4\u003Cbr>5-Least deprived | 210 (37.8)\u003Cbr>110 (19.9)\u003Cbr>95 (17.20\u003Cbr>50 (9.3)\u003Cbr>70 (12.4) | 225 (5.9)\u003Cbr>395 (10.4)\u003Cbr>620 (16.4)\u003Cbr>825 (21.8)\u003Cbr>1230\u003Cbr>(32.5) | 672.0 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| Socioeconomic classification (SEC) | Missing\u003Cbr>Semi-routine and routine occupations Lower supervisory and technical occupations\u003Cbr>Small employers and own account workers Intermediate occupations\u003Cbr>Managerial and professional occupations\u003Cbr>Unknown | 20\u003Cbr>140 (24.9)\u003Cbr>20\u003Cbr>40 (7.5)\u003Cbr>55 (9.9)\u003Cbr>235 (41.8)\u003Cbr>70 (12.5) | 490 (12.9)\u003Cbr>295 (7.8)\u003Cbr>65 (1.8)\u003Cbr>200 (5.3)\u003Cbr>345 (9.1)\u003Cbr>2710\u003Cbr>(71.7)\u003Cbr>165 (4.3) | 277.7 | \u003C 0.001 |\n| UCAT Bursary | No\u003Cbr>Yes | 430 (76.9)\u003Cbr>130 (23.1) | 3625\u003Cbr>(95.8)\u003Cbr>160 (4.2) | 279.5 | \u003C 0.001 |\n\n\n| Variable | Derivation | Gateway |  |  | SEMED |  |  | Total |  |  | F | P –\u003Cbr>Bonferroni |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  | Mean | Std.\u003Cbr>Dev | N | Mean | Std.\u003Cbr>Dev | N | Mean | Std.\u003Cbr>Dev | N |  |  |\n| A level Total Points | Total Score of all A-Levels taken, excluding General Studies. | 24.32 | 4.319 | 490 | 29.63 | 4.618 | 2975 | 28.877 | 4.9376 | 3465 | 568.36 | 0.00 |\n| Z score in year of qualification for the 3 best A-levels | Z-score of the total score of the 3 best A levels within a HESA qualification year | −0.898 | 0.885 | 490 | 0.231 | 0.7970 | 2970 | 0.0708 | 0.901 | 3460 | 821.5 | 0.00 |\n| UCAT TOTAL score\u003Cbr>UCAT TOTAL Z-score | Z-score using mean and SD from the admission year for all candidates | 2384.8\u003Cbr>−\u003Cbr>0.212 | 230.25\u003Cbr>0.837 | 540\u003Cbr>540 | 2633.9\u003Cbr>0.6916 | 217.2\u003Cbr>0.785 | 3675\u003Cbr>3665 | 2601.9\u003Cbr>0.5756 | 234.2\u003Cbr>0.848 | 4215\u003Cbr>4205 | 611.0\u003Cbr>612.3 | 0.00\u003Cbr>0.00 |\n\n\n| \u003Cbr>Fig. 2 Distribution of EPM Normal Deviate Score by Course Type (N = 4310) |  |\n| --- | --- |\n\n\n|  |  | Unstandardized Coefficients |  | Stand. Coeff.\u003Cbr>Beta | t | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval for B |  | sr2 |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  | B | Std. Error |  |  |  | Lower Bound | Upper Bound |  |\n| EPM Deviate – model 1 | (Constant) | −0.812 | 0.066 |  | −12.214 | 0.000 | −0.942 | − 0.681 |  |\n|  | King’s | −0.227 | 0.053 | −0.092 | −4.281 | 0.000 | −0.331 | −0.123 | 0.005 |\n|  | Southampton | −0.037 | 0.057 | −0.014 | −0.656 | 0.512 | −0.148 | 0.074 | 0.000 |\n|  | SEMED | 0.893 | 0.059 | 0.254 | 15.236 | 0.000 | 0.778 | 1.008 | 0.064 |\n| EPM Deviate – model 2 | (Constant) | −0.528 | 0.075 |  | −7.031 | 0.000 | −0.675 | − 0.381 | 0.000 |\n|  | King’s | −0.377 | 0.055 | −0.153 | −6.832 | 0.000 | −0.485 | − 0.268 | 0.013 |\n|  | Southampton | −0.086 | 0.056 | −0.033 | −1.522 | 0.128 | −0.196 | 0.025 | 0.001 |\n|  | SEMED | 0.542 | 0.070 | 0.154 | 7.769 | 0.000 |","cbCaisliAShIpa5t","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisliAShIpa5t","pdf",1313402,14,"English","# Data flow and factor associations\n## Descriptive factor tables\n## Admission and academic attainment variables\n# Regression models and standardized scores\n## EPM Normal Deviate model estimates\n## UCAT and academic attainment by course performance","[{\"question\":\"Which student and school factors are tested for association with outcomes?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis tests variables including sex, ethnicity groups, disability status, school type (HESA), parental education, local area participation (POLAR), IMD deprivation, socioeconomic classification (SEC), and UCAT bursary.\"},{\"question\":\"How are academic attainment and admission measures represented in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Academic attainment uses A level total points and a Z-score based on the best three A-levels within a qualification year, while admission measures use UCAT total scores and UCAT Z-scores derived from the admission-year distribution.\"},{\"question\":\"What modeling approach is used to relate predictors to the EPM Normal Deviate score?\",\"answer\":\"The study reports regression models that provide unstandardized coefficients, standardized beta values, t statistics, significance (Sig.), and 95% confidence intervals for predictors such as SEMED, institution indicators, and standardized UCAT and A-level variables.\"}]","Curtis-Smith 2020 Article - A Comparison of Undergraduate Outcomes | PDF",35]