College Readiness and Success

Education leaders and researchers collect data on college readiness because measures of students’ mindsets, learning strategies, academic behaviors, and social-relational competencies can surface strengths and barriers that are actionable through instruction, advising, and student supports. When tracked over time, these data can also help evaluate whether programs and policies are improving the conditions that enable students to persist and thrive. These data can help college or university staff spot struggling students early, connect them with support at the right moment, and build consistent systems to follow through. Used responsibly, readiness data can complement academic indicators to guide improvement without labeling students or treating measures as fixed traits.

History: Historically, college readiness was defined and measured primarily through academic indicators such as high school GPA, standardized test scores, placement exams, and course-taking patterns. These measures were used to predict college performance and determine placement into developmental or college-level coursework.

Over the past two decades, research has increasingly examined non-academic factors associated with persistence and completion, including students’ beliefs about ability and belonging, their study strategies, engagement behaviors, and responses to setbacks. This work broadened attention beyond academic preparation alone and led to expanded use of survey-based instruments designed to capture students’ perceptions, motivations, and learning strategies.

Unlike early childhood and K-12 settings where observational and teacher report measures are common, postsecondary readiness measurement has relied heavily on student self-report surveys, reflecting both the internal nature of many constructs and the logistical realities of the college environment.

Influence of federal or state priorities: While federal policy has not directly mandated the measurement of non-cognitive readiness factors in postsecondary settings, state and institutional priorities have shaped growing interest in measuring them. State-level college and career readiness initiatives increasingly emphasized transition outcomes such as first-year persistence, credit accumulation, remediation rates and access to college-level coursework. As states and systems sought to reduce barriers to entry and expand access to credit-bearing courses as well as alternative pathways (including adult education and non-credit programs) institutions were prompted to look beyond academic indicators alone when explaining variation in student success.

At the same time, developmental education reform, guided pathways initiatives, and expanded adult education and workforce aligned programs shifted attention towards early academic momentum, engagement in gateway courses, and navigation of institutional structures. These reforms, especially those serving adult learners, returning students, and other nontraditional pathways, highlighted the importance of belonging, help-seeking, self-regulation, and academic integration during the transition to and through postsecondary education.

As institutions redesigned placement, advising, and course sequences, there was growing interest in tools that could capture students’ academic and social navigation beyond traditional test scores. These shifts contributed to the broader adoption of survey-based instruments designed to better understand how students experience and respond to the demands of college. Large-scale survey efforts such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) played a particularly influential role in normalizing the collection of student-reported engagement and experience data.

Respondent types: Student self-report is the most common approach for assessing college readiness factors because many target constructs (e.g., belonging, metacognition, and help-seeking intentions) are internal experiences that are not fully observable in administrative records or by adults. Self-report instruments can also be administered efficiently at scale and are often designed to capture students’ perspectives across contexts (e.g., classrooms, home, advising) that shape postsecondary success. At the same time, responses reflect students’ interpretation of item wording and their comfort with reporting on these topics. Moreover, meaning can vary based on cultural background, language, and prior experiences. Scores should therefore be interpreted as students’ perceptions and self-assessments at a moment in time.

Timing and frequency: Readiness-related constructs vary in their stability and sensitivity to context. For example, constructs such as belonging or engagement may fluctuate across semesters, or even within a term, particularly during key transition points. Learning strategies and mindsets may shift over longer periods, especially in response to targeted instruction or student support interventions. Therefore, institutions should align data collection schedules with their intended use. Surveys administered at entry may inform onboarding supports, while follow-up surveys later in the term or year can help identify emerging barriers. Repeated measurement is particularly valuable when evaluating programs designed to improve student engagement, belonging, or academic momentum.

What this collection includes:

• Instruments intended for research or improvement uses (e.g., surveys, questionnaires, rating scales) that map to one or more Farrington domains.
• Measures appropriate for late secondary (12th grade) and postsecondary populations, including transition-focused tools.

What this collection excludes:

• Aptitude/ability tests, achievement tests, or placement exams.
• Diagnostic/clinical instruments (e.g., mental health screeners) and tools designed primarily for individual diagnosis or treatment planning.