IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jmkthe/v20y2010i2p209-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighing the difference: the validity of multiplicative and subtractive approaches to item weights in an instrument assessing college choice decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Roszkowski
  • Scott Spreat

Abstract

The Admitted Student Questionnaire Plus (ASQ-super-+) is a standardised measure that provides an analysis of the student's college selection process. Among other things, the instrument inquires about the importance of 16 college characteristics, followed by quality ratings of specific colleges that the student considered on these same characteristics. This study investigated the utility of importance weights in the assessment of college choice, examining how much the importance rating would improve one's ability to predict the student's actual college choice over and above what is possible with just the quality ratings. Another purpose of the study was to determine if importance ratings and quality ratings were independent of each other or associated in some way. Two types of weights were studied: (1) standardised weights created by averaging the importance ratings of the entire sample; and (2) subjective weights unique to each respondent. The weights were combined with quality ratings by either: (1) multiplying the quality rating by the importance rating; or by (2) subtracting the quality rating from the importance rating (gap score). Standardised weights did not improve prediction at all, and subjective weights only improved the predictability of college choice by a very miniscule amount (about 1%). Importance and quality ratings were found to be associated, especially in the ratings of the college that the student decided to attend. Some correlations were linear in nature, but many were non-linear, such that characteristics rated high or low were perceived as more important than characteristics assigned mid-range quality ratings. It was concluded that importance weights do not enhance prediction of college choice, but they may be useful for administrators in prioritising interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Roszkowski & Scott Spreat, 2010. "Weighing the difference: the validity of multiplicative and subtractive approaches to item weights in an instrument assessing college choice decisions," Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 209-239, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jmkthe:v:20:y:2010:i:2:p:209-239
    DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2010.526354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/08841241.2010.526354
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher N. Avery & Mark E. Glickman & Caroline M. Hoxby & Andrew Metrick, 2013. "A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 128(1), pages 425-467.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jmkthe:v:20:y:2010:i:2:p:209-239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/WMHE20 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.