¾«¶«Ó°Òµ

Researching on tablet

Research Library

All reports in ¾«¶«Ó°Òµâ€™s Research Library are available upon request. Executive summaries are available below for the latest LSAT Technical Reports and other research published within the last 10 years.

Looking for older reports? Consult the Research Archive

Current Research:

This report focuses on first-year law school enrollment from 2021 through 2025, highlighting who is enrolling in law school, where they enrolled, and how rates of enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized students varied across law schools.
This report provides insight into how students with disabilities in the 2024-2025 1L class navigated the law school application process.
This report provides important insights that law schools and stakeholders can use to support student retention and development in law school and beyond.
What funding sources did the 2024 1L class use to pay for law school? How much debt do they expect to have when they graduate?
This report focuses on the 2024 1L class, examining who is enrolling in law school, where they enrolled, and how they made their enrollment decision.
This report focuses on first-year law school enrollment from 2021 through 2024, highlighting who is enrolling in law school, where they enrolled, and how rates of enrollment of racially and ethnically minoritized students varied across law schools.
Based on survey responses from 2023 law school matriculants, this report provides nuanced information about factors that affect law school decision-making processes for students with disabilities.
This report focuses on the 2023 1L class, examining who is enrolling in law school, where they enrolled, and how they made their enrollment decision.
An in-depth look at how law schools are supporting LGBTQ+ individuals through their legal education journey.
Based on survey responses from 2022 law school matriculants, this report provides nuanced information about factors that affect law school decision-making processes for students with disabilities.
The ¾«¶«Ó°Òµ Research team has issued a first-of-its-kind report offering a highly nuanced perspective on how law schools support LGBTQ+ students.
By Elizabeth Bodamer and Debra Langer
Data shows that justice-impacted individuals face a particularly difficult path to legal education. Is it time to talk about reform?

Standard item response theory (IRT) models have been extended with testlet effects to account for the nesting of items; these are well known as (Bayesian) testlet models or random effect models for testlets. The testlet modeling framework has several disadvantages. A sufficient number of testlet items are needed to estimate testlet effects, and a sufficient number of individuals are needed to estimate testlet variance. The prior for the testlet variance parameter can only represent a positive association among testlet items.

Bayesian covariance structure modeling (BCSM) offers a flexible approach to modeling complex interdependences that arise when gathering test-taker data through computerized testing. In addition to the scored responses, process data such as response times or action patterns are obtained. Data from different sources may be cross-correlated; furthermore, within each data source, blocks of correlated observations may form testlet structures. In previous reports, BCSM was limited to the assumption that all test takers are part of the same group.

The aim of this study was twofold: First, we investigated whether scores on an admission test administered in proctored and unproctored environments led to similar predictions of future academic success. Second, we explored how Bayesian modeling can be of help in interpreting admission-testing data. Results showed that the two modes of administering an admission test did not require the use of different models for predicting academic success, and that Bayesian modeling provides a very useful and easy-to-interpret framework for predicting future academic success.

With computerized testing, it is possible to record not only the responses of test takers to test questions but also other details about the test taker’s activity, such as the amount of time spent responding to each question. These details comprise a new type of data called process data. This report proposes a new approach to modeling responses, response times, and other process data: Test-taker data that naturally belong together are grouped in a cross-classification structure. Five examples of models applying this approach are illustrated.

A new statistical model is proposed to study the effects of various testing conditions on a population of test takers. This flexible model allows for numerous effects to be considered simultaneously. A Bayesian approach is employed, taking prior information into consideration. An empirical example demonstrates the utility of the suggested model to test the influence of item presentation formats on the performance of test takers. This research could be of practical value in a potential transition of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) from a paper-and-pencil format to a digital mode.

Many standardized tests are now administered via computer rather than paper-and-pencil format. The computer-based delivery mode brings with it certain advantages, one of which is the ability to record not only the test taker’s response to each item (i.e., question), but also the amount of time the test taker spends considering and answering each item. Research on how to represent and utilize response time data has proliferated, but most of the research is based on the assumption of constant working speed in relation to a certain accuracy level.

Test theory typically deals with categorical responses to test questions (items), for instance, correct/incorrect responses or responses that represent a choice from a finite number of alternatives. Whenever technically possible, it is attractive to collect information on continuous response variables that accompany these responses as a covariate. One obvious example is response time; other examples are information on cursor movement in computer-based testing, eye-tracking information, or physiological information.

In high-stakes testing, it is important to verify the validity of individual test scores. Although a test, in general, results in valid test scores for most test takers, there may be individual test takers with unusual answer patterns for whom test score validity is questionable. One example of such aberrance is a test taker who guesses on a large number of questions or one who has preknowledge of the answers to some questions. An effective statistical technique (developed for a single test) was extended for tests that consist of multiple subtests, as does the Law School Admission Test.