Virginia Tech
    • Log in
    View Item 
    •   VTechWorks Home
    • ETDs: Virginia Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Doctoral Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   VTechWorks Home
    • ETDs: Virginia Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Doctoral Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A comparison of two procedures for peer group assignment of institutions of higher education

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    LD5655.V856_1989.D344.pdf (3.432Mb)
    Downloads: 299
    Date
    1989
    Author
    Della Mea, Carolyn L.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The exchange of institutional information for the purpose of comparative analysis is an established practice in the decision-making and planning processes of institutions of higher education. For comparative analysis to be meaningful, the institutions must be sufficiently alike to be comparable. Hence, colleges and universities are placed into peer groups, comprised of institutions categorized on the basis of relevant criteria. Comparative analyses and the decisions resulting from the analyses are only as good as the peer groupings that provide the sources for comparison. Thus, the way in which peer groups are formed is a cornerstone of the comparative analysis process. The purpose of this study was to compare two grouping procedures, focal proximity, and cluster analysis, in forming institutional peer groups in higher education. The two procedures were examined in terms of their relative reliability, determined by the stability of group membership over a five-year period of time, and in terms of their comparability at a single point in time, measured by the degree of agreement between peer groups formed in 1983 by each of the two procedures. Discriminant analysis was used to examine the relative importance of the variables used as criteria in the grouping procedures. Both procedures were found to form peer groups with greater than chance stability over the five year period of time. For one sample of institutions, focal proximity was found to be more reliable than cluster analysis in assigning institutions to peer groups. There was no difference between the two methods for a second sample of institutions. For both samples of institutions, agreement between groups formed by focal proximity analysis in 1983 and those formed by cluster analysis at the same point in time was greater than could be expected by chance. The variables that loaded most highly on the first discriminant function of the total canonical structure were PHD (proportion of degrees at the doctoral level) and LRES (research expenditures). The variables that were most important when holding all other variables constant were BA (proportion of degrees at the bachelor level) and MA (proportion of degrees at the master's level).
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10919/54511
    Collections
    • Doctoral Dissertations [15781]

    If you believe that any material in VTechWorks should be removed, please see our policy and procedure for Requesting that Material be Amended or Removed. All takedown requests will be promptly acknowledged and investigated.

    Virginia Tech | University Libraries | Contact Us
     

     

    VTechWorks

    AboutPoliciesHelp

    Browse

    All of VTechWorksCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Log inRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    If you believe that any material in VTechWorks should be removed, please see our policy and procedure for Requesting that Material be Amended or Removed. All takedown requests will be promptly acknowledged and investigated.

    Virginia Tech | University Libraries | Contact Us