MPI

1
MPI
Mission Perception Inventory
Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the
Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) Linking
Mission Goals and Learning Environment
North Carolina State University
Undergraduate Assessment Symposium Aligning
Pedagogy, Curriculum Assessment April
24-26, 2009
Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. and Sister Jane Wakahiu,
LSOSF Marywood University
2
Whats in a mission?
3
scope of research

• Purpose
• Develop an instrument to measure
• student perception
• of institutional
• mission.
• Test instrument reliability.
• Uncover constructs (factors).
• Observe constructs longitudinally.

4
scope of research

• Purpose
• Develop
• an instrument
• Test instrument reliability.
• Uncover constructs.
• Observe constructs
• longitudinally.

• Research Questions
• 1. Is the Mission Perception
• Inventory (MPI) a valid and reliable
• reliable measure of student
• perception of institutional
• mission?
• 2. What are the factors in the MPI?
• 3. Do the factors recur in repeated
• administrations of the revised MPI?
• 4. Are the factors equally reliable over time?

5

• leaders of public and private institutions alike
  are thinking about spirituality these days, as
  the data suggest that's what their students are
  thinking about, too (Inside Higher Ed, 2009).
• There is strong connection between institutional
  programs and student learning environment
  (Pascarella, 2001).
• institutions influence levels of engagement on
  campus as a result of structural features,
  programs, policies, and organizational culture
  (Kuh et al., 2005).

background
6
design

• Select the National Survey of
• Student Engagement (NSSE) as
• the vehicle for inserting research
• questions.
• Assemble a NSSE consortium to
• jointly engage in research to explore
• student perception of mission.
• Develop question items
• administer them to the consortium
• as a NSSE attachment.
• Test the questions reliability, factor
• analysis, and correlation analysis. Repeat
  annually.

7
developing the question items
Concepts common to mission statement of
consortium colleges, like this one, were drawn
out, compared, and distilled into 20
questions.

1. Conduct a qualitative analysis of mission
   statements
2. Distill common constructs
3. Draft question items based on mission statement
   constructs
4. Vet with participating institutions, experts,
   prospective subjects

8
Concepts become question items...
9
A peek at the questionnaire
See consortia questions by year
http//nsse.iub.edu/html/consortia-list_2009.cfm
10
administration
The NSSE survey with attached Mission Perception
Inventory (MPI) questions has been administered
155 times to more than 44,198 first-year and
senior students at 112 unique institutions across
the United States every year since 2004.
11
Is the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) valid
and reliable?

• Reliability analysis of the mission questions
• (20 items) is performed.
• Low-loading
• items kicked
• out.
• A Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) is
• produced (17 to 19 items).

12
What are the factors (scales) in the Mission
Perception Inventory?

• Factor analysis
• of MPI
• is conducted each year.
• By year, three or four subscales are produced
• Sense of mission.
• Respect for diversity.
• Individual values.
• Religious practice/Spirituality.

13
derivation of the MPI and subscales
14
sense of mission (10 items ? .90)

• The mission of this institution is widely
  understood by students.
• Social and personal development is an important
  part of the mission.
• Ethical and spiritual development of students is
  important.
• This institution offers opportunities for
  volunteering and community service.
• This institution offers opportunities for
  developing leadership skills.
• There are opportunities for students to
  strengthen their religious commitment.
• This institutions religious heritage is evident.
• Professors here discuss the ethical implications
  of what is being studied.
• As a result of my experience here, I am more
  aware of my own personal values.
• The mission of this institution is reflected in
  course offerings.

15
respect for diversity (5 items ? .878)

• The faculty, staff, and students here
• respect different religions
• respect different races and
• cultures
• Students feel free to express individual
  spirituality.
• Different sexual orientations are accepted.
• The environment encourages appreciation of
  diversity.

16
Consortia institutions and respondents by year

Respondents Respondents
Institutions Institutions First Year Senior
2004 15 2,000 1,827
2005 16 1,279 1,332
2006 24 2,684 2,854
2007 36 4,533 4,331
Catholic 2008 35 4520 5063
Indepent 2008 29 6805 6970
  155 21,821 22,377
(112 unique institutions)

17
Do the factors recur in repeated administrations
of the revised Mission Perception Inventory (MPI)
18
(MPI) Mission PerceptionInventory
Report
19
Are the factors equally reliable over time?
Subscales 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Catholic 2008Indept
cronbach ? cronbach ? cronbach ? cronbach ? cronbach ? cronbach ?
Sense of Mission .87 .88 .88 .90 .91 .88
Respect for Diversity .85 .84 .87 .86 .88 .87
Individual Actions .67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Religious Practice/Spirituality .62 .55 .54 .62 .62 .64
MPI scale .88 .89 .90 .91 .91 .90
20
Teagle Foundation Research Continues
2009

• Develop the Mission Engagement Index.
• Obtain NSSE 2008 consortia data
• Test using reliability analysis to
• produce factors
• Distribute MPI reports
• Compare consortia results
• Conduct regression analysis to create the new
  index
• Produce Mission Engagement Index (MEI) Reports
  for consortia institutions.

21
Does the Mission Engagement Index describe causal
relationships among variables that affect mission
perception?

• Dependent variable (Institution score)
• Mission Perception Inventory
• Sense of Mission scale
• Respect for Diversity scale
• Independent variables (need 15 cases per)
• Selectivity 15 institutions
• Enrollment 30 institutions
• Urbanicity 45 institutions
• Resident 60 institutions
• Female 75 institutions
• Another? 90 institutions

a recommended ratio of subjects to IVs of at
least 15 to 1 will provide a reliable regression
equation (Stevens, 1992).
22
Selecting IVs for regression analysis
23
participating institutions by region
2008 2 consortia, 54 institutions
24
urbanicity of participating institutions 2008
25
considering elegance

• Consistency of factors is affirmed.
• Institution sizes reasonably varied.
• Data sufficient to conduct analysis.
• Variables, initially selected
• on an a priori basis, tested.
• Variability investigated.
• Useful.

ßeta juice
26
MPI ScalesComparison of means by institution
type
27
Correlation of regression variables with MPI mean
28
Deriving coefficientsfor the Mission Engagement
Index (MEI)
29
Correlation of regression variables with Mission
scale mean
30
Predictive Equation

• Institution Predicted MPI Score
• (B1)(Value of USN_setting)(-0.414)(1, 2, or
  3)
• (B2)(Value of Religious Affiliation)(0.345)(1
  or 2)
• Constant(3.687)

Mortenson, T. (1997). Actual Vs Predicted
institutional graduation rates for 1100 Colleges
and universities. Opportunity, 58.
31
Mock Mission Engagement Index Report

• The MEI will show an institutions actual versus
  predicted scores on mission constructs.
• Progress on mission effectiveness can be assessed
  by comparing MEI outcomes to institutional goals.

32
References

• Inside Higher Education (2009). Spiritual
  accountability. Retrieved from http//www.insidehi
  ghered.com/layout/set/pri...assessment/01/02/2007/
  News
• Kuh, D. G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., and Whitt,
  E. J. (2005). Never let it rest lessons about
  student success from high-performing colleges
  and universities. Change, 37(4), 44-51.
• Mortenson, T. (1997). Actual Vs predicted
  institutional graduation rates for 1100 colleges
  and universities. Opportunity, 58.
• Pacarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellence
  in undergraduate education. Change, 33(3), 18-27.
• Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate
  statistics for the social sciences (2nd edition).
  Hillsdale, New Jersey Erlbaum.

33
Discussion
34
Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the
Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) Linking
Mission Goals and Learning Environment

• Ellen Boylan, Ph.D.
• Director of Institutional Research and Assessment
• eboylan_at_marywood.edu
• Sister Jane Wakahiu, LSOSF, MA
• Graduate Assistant
• jwakahiu_at_marywood.edu
• Office of Planning and Institutional Research
• http//cwis.marywood.edu/instresearch/activity.stm
  

Marywood University
35
(No Transcript)
36
MPI
Mission Perception Inventory
Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the
Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) Linking
Mission Goals and Learning Environment
North Carolina State University
Undergraduate Assessment Symposium Aligning
Pedagogy, Curriculum Assessment April
24-26, 2009
Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. and Sister Jane Wakahiu,
LSOSF Marywood University