Skip to content
  • Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery

Focus Areas

  • Dual Enrollment
  • Developmental Education
  • Guided Pathways
  • Advising & Student Supports
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Transfer
  • College to Career
Menu
  • Dual Enrollment
  • Developmental Education
  • Guided Pathways
  • Advising & Student Supports
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Transfer
  • College to Career

Publications Library

CCRC’s complete collection of publications

Presentations

Webinars and conference presentations with CCRC researchers

Guided Pathways Workshops

Materials from our do-it-yourself workshop series

Policy Resources

Our collection of federal policy briefs and fact sheets

  • CCRC Staff
  • Research Affiliates
  • Advisory Board
  • Employment
  • Biennial Report
  • Contact
Menu
  • CCRC Staff
  • Research Affiliates
  • Advisory Board
  • Employment
  • Biennial Report
  • Contact
  • CCRC in the News
  • Opinion
  • Press Releases
Menu
  • CCRC in the News
  • Opinion
  • Press Releases
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Multiple Measures Assessment: Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial

By Elizabeth M. Kopko, Hollie Daniels Sarica & Dan Cullinan

This study—a follow-up to prior CAPR research using the same sample of students—employs a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether an algorithmic multiple measures assessment (MMA) system used at seven State University of New York (SUNY) community colleges led to better student outcomes—for up to four and a half years after randomization—than a system based on test scores alone. The authors estimate the overall treatment effects on enrollment in and completion of college-level math and English as well as effects on other outcomes. They conduct similar analyses on race/ethnicity, Pell recipient status, and gender subgroups. They also descriptively examine the outcomes of program group students whose placements were bumped up and bumped down by the MMA algorithm (many students’ placements did not change). They perform a cost-effectiveness analysis as well.

The study finds that the MMA method used at the colleges improved access to and success in college-level courses and that lower cut scores in English rather than math are associated with larger and longer lasting impacts on completion of college-level coursework. In English, program group students had higher rates of enrollment in and completion of (with a C or higher) college-level English courses. Impacts on enrollment and completion in English were statistically significant across all nine terms. In math, program group students had higher rates of enrollment in college-level math courses, and they had higher initial rates of completion. While impacts on enrollment persisted through term nine, there is no evidence that statistically significant gains in completion were sustained past the first term for the full sample.

While MMA improved outcomes among student subgroups, it had little to no impact on gaps in outcomes between subgroups. The study also finds that bumped-up students had substantially better outcomes in both math and English, while bumped-down students had substantially worse outcomes. The results suggest that increased access to college-level courses is the driving factor in the positive outcomes experienced by program group students and that placement into standalone developmental courses can have detrimental effects on student outcomes. In the discussion of the study’s results, the authors make recommendations for adopting MMA at colleges.

An accompanying CAPR brief focusing on the “bump-zone” findings of the study is also available: By the ninth term, program group students in the bump-up zone were about 9 percentage points more likely than their business-as-usual peers to complete college-level math or English.

A CAPR toolkit for reforming assessment and placement using MMA is available.

Download working paper
October 2023
  • Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness (CAPR)

Related Publications

October 2023

The Long-Term Effects of Multiple Measures Assessment at SUNY Community Colleges

January 2022

Lessons From Two Experimental Studies of Multiple Measures Assessment

October 2020

Who Should Take College-Level Courses? Impact Findings From an Evaluation of a Multiple Measures Assessment Strategy

Related Presentations

April 2021

Multiple Measures Assessment and Placement: Getting Started

Additional Resources

For more policy briefs and fact sheets, visit CCRC’s Policy Resources page.

  • Our Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery
  • Our Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery

Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University
Box 174 | 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027

  • 212.678.3091
  • ccrc@columbia.edu

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Youtube Instagram
Join our mailing list
  • Our Research
    • Focus Areas
    • Publications Library
    • Presentations
    • Guided Pathways Workshops
    • Policy Resources
  • About Us
    • CCRC Staff
    • Research Affiliates
    • Advisory Board
    • Employment
    • Biennial Report
    • Contact
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery
  • Our Research
    • Focus Areas
    • Publications Library
    • Presentations
    • Guided Pathways Workshops
    • Policy Resources
  • About Us
    • CCRC Staff
    • Research Affiliates
    • Advisory Board
    • Employment
    • Biennial Report
    • Contact
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery