REPORT
OF THE
NCAA
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
Association-wide.
a.
Gambling
Study. The committee
received an overview of the study and the initial results. An analysis was suggested where
correlation would be tested among questions regarding knowledge of NCAA rules
concerning gambling and reported gambling behaviors. The committee suggested an additional
question in subsequent gambling surveys where the substance of NCAA rules
regarding gambling would be tested to get a sense of the level of understanding
student-athletes have of the rules.
The committee also suggested the development of a second survey that is
considerably shorter in length and multiple methods of survey administration
including group and individual administration.
b.
Research Review
Board (RRB). The RRB reviewed and approved two
studies: (1) the Division III
Financial Aid Electronic Reporting Process Pilot; and (2) the Injury
Surveillance System.
c.
Research
Proposals. The committee reviewed four research
proposals from external researchers but chose not to fund any of them. A subcommittee was formed to work with
two of the research groups to improve the studies for possible funding in the
future.
d.
Faculty
Athletics Representative (FAR) Involvement in NCAA Research. The committee proposed a
resolution to formalize FAR involvement in NCAA research initiatives and that
this relationship would be guided by the Research Committee.
Division I Only.
e. Committee on Academic
Performance.
(1) Cut Points on
Historical Penalties. The
committee heard information relating to the historical penalties facet of the
incentive/disincentive program, and the use of cut-scores on the Academic
Progress Rate (APR) in the application of those penalties. Issues raised during the discussion
included the effect of the fifth year of eligibility proposal on the APR, the
perceived communication gap between the NCAA and high school constituents
concerning the academic expectations of the NCAA continuing eligibility rules,
the effect of choice of major field of study on the APR and the need for a
strategy to adequately compare the APR for student-athletes to the academic
performance of the general student body.
Staff was charged with continuing to monitor these issues as the NCAA
moves forward with the incentives/disincentives program. The committee also heard information on
the philosophy surrounding the choice of an APR cut score and various scoring
systems that may be utilized for the APR.
(2) Cut Points on
Contemporaneous Penalties. The committee
heard information concerning philosophical and practical approaches to
determining an appropriate cut score on the APR for the contemporaneous
penalties facet of the incentives/disincentives program. The committee suggested an addition to
the data analysis plan that would explore the effects of cut scores across
sport teams at a single school.
This analysis would help answer questions concerning the source of a
program’s underperformance (i.e., whether the underperformance is the
result of underperformance by a single sport team within the program or there
is a “culture of underperformance” present within the program that
is evidenced by the underperformance of multiple sport teams within a program).
(3) Quarter/Semester
Variances. The committee heard
information on the APR at schools that employ a quarter system versus those
that employ a semester calendar. It
was explained that at a quarter school the base rate can change more frequently
than at a semester school due to censoring (i.e., once a student-athlete
separates from the institution they are removed from the cohort). This phenomenon can have small, but
significant effects on the APR.
f. Academic Performance Program. An overview detailing the
functionality and role as the primary data collection tool within the academic
reform movement was provided. A
number of issues were raised including the confidentiality of the data,
open-records laws, software security, the suppression of data and the appropriate
use of the data in assessing penalties.
Staff was asked to explore these issues and report at the next meeting.
g. SCORE Study. The committee received a progress report
on the longitudinal Study of College Outcomes and Related Experiences
(SCORE). The committee made a
number of suggestions concerning the survey instrument. The committee approved the sampling plan
and methodology for distribution of the survey instrument to the first round of
participants. A follow-up report
will be given at the next meeting.
Division
III Only.
h. Division III Financial
Aid Audit. A report was given on the Division III
financial aid reporting process detailing the final development phase of the
Financial Aid Data Management System and study protocol.