Search

There is much to discuss, and debate, about the sources and effects of inequality on economic growth and social mobility, and the relationship between education and economic growth. However, an undergraduate degree from a highly selective and elite college gives students a strong advantage in gaining employment in jobs that promise greater lifetime earnings. The widely held assumption is that the prestige of the college is a useful proxy for the quality of the graduates of that institution. Irrespective of the relationship between education and economic growth, post-secondary education is imperative to the enhancement of human capital and a rich source of talent for employers. If there are significant bottlenecks, or structural impediments, that block equal opportunity for students of high ability that do not go to elite colleges, we should identify the problem and attempt to reduce or eliminate it. In the United States, achieving equal opportunity in post-secondary education is typically described in terms of enrolling more underrepresented groups in selective colleges. The belief is that if this step is accomplished, it will have a fundamental impact on the problem of inequality at the national level. However, what if there are not enough places for students in selective colleges to accomplish this goal? What if selective colleges do not have enough capacity to make a significant impact on the problem of serving students from underrepresented groups with demonstrated high abilities? These questions are addressed in this report.

The measurement of higher-order competencies within a tertiary education system across countries presents methodological challenges due to differences in educational systems, socio-economic factors, and perceptions as to which constructs should be assessed (Blömeke, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Kuhn, & Fege, 2013). According to Hart Research Associates (2009), there is substantial merit in assessing twenty-first century skills such as critical thinking and writing since about 78% of academic institutions in the United States have established crossdiscipline learning outcomes, so called meta domains (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), that all undergraduate students should possess upon graduation. Furthermore, changing skill demands of graduating students have been observed around the world since the 1990s (Levy & Murname, 2004). Meeting the demands of today's world requires a shift in assessment strategies to measure the skills now prized in a complex global environment. More specifically, assessments that only foster the recall of factual knowledge have been on the decline, whereas assessments that evoke higher-order cognitive skills have seen an accelerating demand in the twenty-first century. As an example, CAE (the Council for Aid to Education) has been developing assessments that target higher-order skills. The Collegiate Learning Assessment-plus (CLA+) is a measure that emulates critical-thinking and writing skills. In late 2012, the Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR) approached CAE proposing a research study to test the feasibility of adapting, translating, and administering CLA+ to higher education students in Italy. The purpose of this feasibility study was twofold. The first purpose was to see if it was possible to assess Italian students' higher-order skills as outlined in Table 1. The second purpose was to see if the Italian students' performance was comparable to their American counterparts. CLA+ is a mixed-format type assessment; thus this paper presents the results from the feasibility study as a case study of the successful adaption, translation, and administration of CLA+ in 12 Italian institutions. A discussion is provided regarding how different biases may be addressed within an international context. A second analysis examined whether students from Italy and the US ascribe the same meanings to different item formats (PT and SRQs) thus addressing the issue of measurement equivalence and the feasibility of cross-cultural score comparisons. Results are interpreted within a validity framework.