The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Student ...€¦ · Using the Spring 2015 Census, the...

Office of Institutional Research | [email protected] | (312) 467 – 6033 | Spring 2015

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Student Experience Survey

Spring 2015

Field Interviewing: March 9, 2015 to March 27, 2015

mailto:[email protected]


Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sample ..................................................................... 1

Analysis .................................................................... 2

Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Is a Good Fit for Educational & Professional Objectives ............. 5

Factor 2: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Integrates Theoretical Knowledge for Working with Diverse

Populations .....................................................................................................................................................................10

Factor 3: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Integrates Professional Practice for Working with Diverse

Populations. ....................................................................................................................................................................15

Student Experience with Faculty .....................................................................................................................................20

Interactions with Peers ...................................................................................................................................................30

Experience with Diversity ................................................................................................................................................36

Experience with Education & Training Preparedness .......................................................................................................55

Experience with Professional Development.....................................................................................................................68

Experience with Co-Curriculars in Creating a Student Community & Professional Network .............................................75

TCSPP Resources that Have Contributed Positively to Student Experience ......................................................................76

Recommendations for Improvement & Additional Feedback...........................................................................................78

Appendices .....................................................................................................................................................................79

Factor Analysis ........................................................79

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology .......82



1

Introduction The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is committed to providing an exceptional education for careers in psychology and related behavioral and health sciences. In order to continue this, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology has tasked the Office of Institutional Research to conduct a web-based assessment of students’ experience with The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. The purpose of this assessment is to examine the nature of student engagement with respect to learning and teaching to continually improve The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

The 2015 assessment has two main functions:

1. To identify factors that influence student growth and development. 2. To examine how these factors might vary across campuses and demographics.

Methodology

Sample

Using the Spring 2015 Census, the Office of Institutional Research identified 4,271 active students among all of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology’s campuses. Two-hundred and forty-seven students were randomly selected for a pilot study which ran from March 2, 2015 to March 5, 2015. Of those selected, 40 students participated1 (34 complete surveys and 6 partial surveys for a response rate of 16.2 percent). The remaining 4,024 students were asked to participate in the survey from March 9, 2015 to March 27, 2015. Of the 4,024 students asked to participate, 1,1292 took part in the survey (970 complete surveys, 159 partial surveys, 4 opted-out, and 1 email bounced back for a response rate of 28.1 percent). All students were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire that contained a total of sixty-five survey items that were in the form of multiple choice questions, Likert response scales and open-ended questions.

In order to increase response rates, the Office of Institutional Research first contacted individuals using an introductory email on March 9, 2015 that included an individualized link to the questionnaire. Individuals that had not responded to the survey received a reminder email four days later (March 13, 2015) that contained an individualized link to the questionnaire. A second reminder email was sent three days later on March 16, 2015; a third reminder email four days later (March 20, 2015); and, a final reminder email was sent on March 23, 2015 to individuals who still had not responded to the survey. The total number of possible contacts attempted by the Office of Institutional Research was five, each containing an individualized link to the survey.

Additionally, all individuals who completed some portion of the survey were entered into a drawing to win a gift card; respectively, one respondent from each campus. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology also provided an extensive marketing campaign that included an announcement on the ePortal, an advertisement on the myChicagoSchool page, flyers posted throughout campus bulletin boards and student lounges, advertisements on campus flat screens, and some faculty announced the survey in class.

1 The topline includes the responses of the 40 students from the pilot study. However, these students are not included in any

analyses within this report. 2 These responses comprise the final sample.



2

The overall response rate for the survey is 28.1 percent with a cooperation rate of 85.6 percent and a margin of error of ±2.9 percent.3

The corresponding table (Table 1) compares three groups: the overall student population of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, the final sample, and the factor analysis sample. As seen in the table, the final sample and the factor analysis sample closely resemble the population of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology but with a few exceptions. The final sample and the factor analysis sample contain a slightly higher portion of respondents from the Chicago campus and a reduced portion of respondents from the Southern California campuses4 than the population. Additionally, the final sample and the factor analysis sample have more respondents who identify as white and fewer respondents who identify as a different race or ethnicity5 than the population.

Table 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Population v. Student Experience Sample

Spring 2015 Census (A)

Final Sample Factor Analysis Sample

(n) (4,285) (1,129) (749) Campus

Chicago/ Grayslake 36.7% 40.8% 40.9% Online 28.8% 27.0% 27.6% Los Angeles/ Westwood/ Irvine 26.1% 20.9% 20.3% Washington, D.C. 8.4% 11.2% 11.2%

Gender

Female 82.0% 82.1% 81.6% Male 18.0% 17.9% 18.4%

Race/ Ethnicity

White 50.0% 53.4% 53.3% Black/ African-American 21.0% 22.5% 23.5% Latino(a)/ Hispanic 14.0% 13.3% 13.2% Other 15.0% 10.8% 9.9%

Analysis

The survey instrument included forty-five survey items6 assessing attitudes regarding student experience with The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. The questions were evaluated using a 5 point or 4 point Likert-scale with items asking respondents to report their level of agreement with the provided statements. Responses range from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, to Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, to Strongly Agree.

3 Response rate and cooperation rate was calculated according to AAPOR guidelines. The margin of error was calculated using the

following formula:

( ), where

and n is the number of respondents in the final sample, 1,129.

4 Respondents from the Grayslake campus were merged with respondents from the Chicago campus while respondents from Los

Angeles, Westwood, and Irvine were merged into one campus called Southern California. 5 Races and ethnicities included within the Other category include Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/ Alaskan Native,

International, Two or more races, and Not reported. 6 The survey instrument contained a total of 65 survey items. However, only 45 survey items were included in the exploratory factor

analysis due to either response format (open-ended questions) or unrelated question content.



3

In order to examine how respondents assess student experience with The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, the Office of Institutional Research conducted a series of factor analyses7 to identify which of the forty-five survey items included in the survey instrument were answered similarly by respondents.8 A factor analysis is a statistical method used to identify underlying relationships and latent constructs between measured variables. Twenty-four of the survey items did not sufficiently9 correlate with any other items and subsequently are not included in the factor analysis.

All other items were included in the factor analysis presented in this report.10 The resulting factor analysis produced three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (11.359, 3.437, and 1.199) and account for 72.3 percent of the total variance. In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO-test) is .951 indicating sample adequacy (n = 750). The three factors analyzed within this report are:

1. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives. 2. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates theoretical knowledge for working with diverse

populations. 3. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diverse

populations.

To assess how different demographic groups evaluate The Chicago School of Professional Psychology on student experience, the Office of Institutional Research ran a series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs)11 for each of the three factors. Each of the subsequent sections provides a detailed analysis of the overall factor score as well as any significant differences in how demographic groups scored on each of the factors. The results of the ANOVA are provided in corresponding tables.

Table 2 provides general descriptive statistics for each of the factors. Factor 1 has a mean of 0.000 with responses ranging from -3.172 to 1.732. Factor 2 is centered on 0.00 with responses ranging from -3.868 to 2.608. Factor 3 ranges from -3.401 to 2.197 with a mean of 0.000. The means that are displayed in the corresponding tables are based on regression factor scores. By construction, regression factor scores are standardized. Thus, a score of 0.000 on a factor indicates that a group’s rating is close to the sample average. Likewise, a negative score indicates that a group’s mean rating is below the sample average or, in other words, the group gave a lower response (vice versa for a positive score). Please note that the reported mean factor score average does not necessarily correspond to the middle of the Likert-scale. For example, a factor score of 0.000 could correspond to an average rating of Strongly Agree on the original Likert-scale or any other Likert scale response.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3

(n = 750) Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Factor 1 -3.172 1.732 0.000 0.978 Factor 2 -3.868 2.608 0.000 0.958 Factor 3 -3.401 2.197 0.000 0.928

7 The factor analysis performed in this analysis used a maximum likelihood extraction method with a varimax rotation, and Regression factor scores were produced due to the ease of interpretability. 8 Respondents were allowed to skip any question within the survey for any reason. Therefore, the factor analysis includes only respondent profiles that answered all of the questions included in the factor analysis (n = 742). 9 In this analysis, questions items with a factor loading of less than 0.60 were excluded from the factor analysis. A full list of question

items included in the factor analysis is available in the appendix. 10

A complete list of items included in each of the three factors, as well as, the correlation matrix for each factor are included in the appendix. Additionally, a scree-plot and confirmatory factor analysis indicates three factors. 11

An ANOVA is a set of statistical models used to analyze the variation among and between groups to determine if the means of several groups are equal.



4

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3. All three factors are centered on 0.000 due to how regression factor scores are calculated. Overall, the three factors display similar levels of dispersion (See SD in Table 2) with Factor 1 displaying the most dispersion (SD = 0.978) followed by Factor 2 (SD = 0.958) and Factor 3 (SD = 0.928). Additionally, Table 3 provides the factor score coefficient matrix for all three factors used in the analysis.

Table 3: Factor Score Coefficient Matrix for Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3

Factor

1 2 3 Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives.

I have the support I need at TCSPP to achieve my research goals.

0.040 -0.011 0.004

I am satisfied with my OVERALL academic experience at TCSPP.

0.114 -0.029 -0.074

I would recommend TCSPP to friends, family, and colleagues.

0.273 -0.090 -0.100

I made the right choice by enrolling at TCSPP. 0.213 -0.029 -0.074 My overall experience at TCSPP has met my expectation.

0.214 -0.042 -0.035

I feel a sense of pride attending TCSPP. 0.183 -0.018 -0.066 TCSPP has a good reputation within the community.

0.052 -0.002 -0.010

I feel welcomed by individuals at TCSPP. 0.049 -0.013 0.005 I feel a sense of belonging at TCSPP. 0.075 -0.022 0.005 Factor 2: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates theoretical knowledge for working with diverse populations.

Age differences -0.003 0.108 -0.081 Cultural differences -0.023 0.108 0.009 Disability differences -0.011 0.137 -0.109 Ethnic differences -0.044 0.175 0.018 Gender differences -0.036 0.203 -0.086 Racial differences -0.063 0.256 -0.009 Religious differences -0.015 0.133 -0.095 Sexual orientation differences -0.030 0.188 -0.126 Socioeconomic differences -0.018 0.141 -0.074 Factor 3: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diverse populations.

Age differences -0.010 -0.107 0.207 Ethnic differences -0.043 -0.263 0.477 Racial differences -0.018 -0.132 0.257



5

Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Is a Good Fit for Educational &

Professional Objectives Factor 1 consists of nine statements evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), to Strongly Agree (5). Overall, respondents evaluate Factor 1 positively indicating agreement with the factor: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives with the average response ranging from Neutral (3) to Agree (4) (See Table 4). Table 4: Mean Likert Scale Responses for Factor 1

Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives.

Mean Likert Scale Evaluation

I have the support I need at TCSPP to achieve my research goals. 3.7

Neutral to Agree

I am satisfied with my OVERALL academic experience at TCSPP. 3.9

Neutral to Agree

I would recommend TCSPP to friends, family, and colleagues. 3.8

Neutral to Agree

I made the right choice by enrolling at TCSPP. 3.9

Neutral to Agree

My overall experience at TCSPP has met my expectation. 3.7

Neutral to Agree

I feel a sense of pride attending TCSPP. 3.7

Neutral to Agree

TCSPP has a good reputation within the community. 3.7

Neutral to Agree

I feel welcomed by individuals at TCSPP. 4.0

Agree

I feel a sense of belonging at TCSPP. 3.7

Neutral to Agree

Campus. The Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses display mean factor scores below the overall mean factor score (0.000) while the Online campus displays a mean factor score above the overall average (See Figure 1 and/ or Table 5). A one-way ANOVA reveals that there are statistically significant differences in how the campuses evaluate Factor 1 (See Table 5). Further analysis using a Tukey post hoc test12 finds that respondents from the Online campus display significantly higher evaluations of Factor 1 than respondents from the Chicago campus (p-value = 0.001), the Southern California campuses (p-value = 0.000), and the Washington, D.C. campus (p-value = 0.000). There are no significant differences between the Chicago and the Southern California campuses, the Chicago campus and the Washington, D.C. campus, or the Southern California campuses and the Washington, D.C. campus.

12

A post hoc test is used after finding a significant difference between conditions to determine where significant differences exist. For example, the ANOVA revealed that campuses evaluate factor 1 differently. However, you cannot determine which campuses are different from one another without using a post hoc test. OIR researchers used a Tukey post hoc test due to its conservative approach.



6

Table 5: Difference in Means for Factor 1 by Campus

Chicago Online

Southern California

Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

Factor 1* -0.051 (0.957)

0.275 (0.918)

-0.141 (1.017)

-0.236 (0.996)

0.000 (0.979)

F(3, 746)=8.660

Note: * p-value < 0.050; + p-value < 0.100


Gender. Overall, male respondents, typically, evaluate Factor 1 less favorably than female respondents with respective factor score means of -0.085 and 0.019. However, these differences are statistically indistinguishable (See Figure 2 and/ or Table 6).

Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, male and female respondents do not statistically differ in their evaluations of Factor 1—with respective mean factor scores of -0.253 and -0.005 (See Figure 2 and/ or Table 6). Online. Both male and female respondents at the Online campus display a positive mean factor score with female respondents displaying a higher mean factor score (respectively, 0.144 v. 0.306). Yet, these differences are statistically indistinguishable from one another. Therefore, male and female respondents attending the Online campus evaluate Factor 1 the same (See Figure 2 and/ or Table 6).

-0.051

0.275

-0.141 -0.236

0.000

-3.172

-2.672

-2.172

-1.672

-1.172

-0.672

-0.172

0.328

0.828

1.328

Chicago Online Southern California Washington, D.C. Total

Figure 1: Mean Factor 1 Scores by Campus



7

Southern California. Even though male respondents display a positive mean factor score and female respondents a negative mean factor score (respectively, 0.045 and -0.183), a one-way ANOVA reveals that no statistical differences exist in how male respondent and female respondents from the Southern California campuses evaluate Factor 1 (See Figure 2 and/ or Table 6). Washington, D.C. At the Washington, D.C. campus, male and female respondents evaluate Factor 1 equally with respective factor score means of -0.206 and -0.261 (See Figure 2 and/ or Table 6).


-0.085 -0.253

0.144 0.045

-0.206

0.019 -0.005

0.306

-0.183 -0.261

-0.005 -0.057

0.275

-0.148 -0.254

-3.172

-2.672

-2.172

-1.672

-1.172

-0.672

-0.172

0.328

0.828

1.328

All Campuses Chicago+ Online Southern California DC

Figure 2: Mean Factor 1 Scores by Gender

Male Female Total



8

Table 6: Difference in Means for Factor 1 by Gender

Male Female Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

All Campuses -0.085 (0.951)

0.019 (0.982)

-0.005 (0.977)

F(1, 745)=1.123

Chicago+ -0.253 (1.023)

-0.005 (0.931)

-0.057 (0.955)

F(1, 304)=3.459

Online 0.144

(0.852) 0.306

(0.933) 0.275

(0.918) F(1, 205)=1.014

Southern California

0.045 (0.858)

-0.183 (1.042)

-0.148 (1.016)

F(1, 149)=0.982

Washington, D.C. -0.206 (0.950)

-0.261 (1.000)

-0.254 (0.988)

F(1, 81)=0.029


Race/ Ethnicity. On average, Black/ African American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display factor score means above the overall average (respectively, 0.065 and 0.202 vs. -0.001) while White and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display factor score means below the overall average (respectively, -0.046 and -0.184 v. -0.001). A one-way ANOVA reveals that there are statistical differences (p-value < 0.05) in how different race/ ethnic groups evaluate Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives. A Tukey post hoc test finds that Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as different race/ ethnic group slightly differ (p-value = 0.057) with Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents having more positive evaluations; however, no other race/ ethnic groups were significantly different from one another (See Figure 3 and/or Table 7). Chicago. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the most favorable evaluations of Factor 1 with a mean factor score of 0.008 followed by White respondents (-0.045), respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (-0.110), and Black/ African-American respondents (-0.205). However, these differences are null (See Figure 3 and/or Table 7). Online. Within the online campus, all race/ ethnic groups with the exception of respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group display a positive mean factor score. However, these differences are not significant (See Figure 3 and/or Table 7). Southern California. At the Southern California campuses, Black/ African-American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display mean factor scores above the mean factor score for all of the Southern California campuses (respectively, 0.083 and 0.311 v. -0.137) while White respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group display mean factor scores below (respectively, -0.523 and -0.272 v. -0.137). A one-way ANOVA reveals that there are statistical differences (p-value < 0.05) in how different race/ ethnic groups at the Southern California campuses evaluate Factor 1. Specifically, a Tukey post hoc test finds that White respondents statistically differ from Black/ African-American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents when evaluating Factor 1. Overall, white respondents evaluate Factor 1 lower than Black/ African-American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents. However, no differences exist among any other race/ ethnic groups when evaluating Factor 1 (See Figure 3 and/or Table 7). Washington, D.C. Overall, respondents from the Washington, D.C. display negative evaluations for Factor 1 regardless of a respondent’s race/ ethnicity. Specifically, respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group display the lowest mean factor score (-0.541) followed by Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (-0.321), White respondents (-0.270), and Black/



9

African- American respondents (-0.127). A one-way ANOVA further reveals that there are no statistical differences in how race/ ethnic groups from Washington, D.C. evaluate Factor 1 (See Figure 3 and/or Table 7).


Table 7: Difference in Means for Factor 1 by Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic

Other Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

All Campuses* -0.046 (0.995)

0.065 (0.963)

0.202 (0.978)

-0.184 (0.864)

-0.001 (0.977)

F(3, 715)=2.754

Chicago -0.045 (0.936)

-0.205 (1.059)

0.008 (1.113)

-0.110 (0.860)

-0.065 (0.959)

F(3, 288)=0.347

Online 0.276

(0.939) 0.310

(0.907) 0.478

(0.801) -0.011 (0.852)

0.291 (0.909)

F(3, 194)=0.754

Southern California*

-0.523 (1.118)

0.083 (0.798)

0.311 (0.903)

-0.272 (0.923)

-0.137 (1.022)

F(3, 143)=6.234

Washington, D.C. -0.270 (0.963)

-0.127 (1.029)

-0.321 (1.046)

-0.541 (0.761)

-0.234 (0.977)

F(3, 78)=0.405


-0.046 -0.045

0.276

-0.523

-0.270

0.065

-0.205

0.310

0.083

-0.127

0.202 0.008

0.478 0.311

-0.321 -0.184 -0.110

-0.011

-0.272

-0.541

-0.001 -0.065

0.291 -0.137

-0.234

-3.172

-2.672

-2.172

-1.672

-1.172

-0.672

-0.172

0.328

0.828

1.328

All Campuses* Chicago Online Southern California* Washington, D.C.

Figure 3: Factor 1 Mean Scores by Race/ Ethnicity

White Black/ African-American Latino(a)/ Hispanic Other Total



10

Factor 2: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Integrates Theoretical Knowledge

for Working with Diverse Populations

Factor 2 consists of nine statements evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1), Somewhat Disagree (2), Somewhat Agree (3), to Strongly Agree (4). Overall, respondents evaluate Factor 2 positively indicating agreement with the factor: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates theoretical knowledge for working with diverse populations with the average responses ranging from Somewhat Agree (3) to Strongly Agree (4) (See Table 8). Table 8: Mean Likert Scale Responses for Factor 2

Factor 2: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates theoretical knowledge for working with diverse populations.


Age differences 3.1

(Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree)

Cultural differences 3.4


Disability differences 3.0

(Somewhat Agree)

Ethnic differences 3.3


Gender differences 3.2


Racial differences 3.3


Religious differences 3.0

(Somewhat Agree)

Sexual orientation differences 3.1


Socioeconomic differences 3.2


Campus. Again, the Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses display mean factor scores below the overall mean factor score (0.000) while the Online campus displays a mean factor score above the overall mean (See Figure 4 and/ or Table 9). However, a one-way ANOVA reveals that the four campuses do not differ in how they evaluate Factor 2 (See Table 9). Specifically, on average, the four campuses evaluate Factor 2 the same. Table 9: Difference in Factor 2 Means by Campus

Chicago Online Southern California

Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

Factor 2 -0.310 (0.904)

0.052 (0.974)

-0.001 (0.940)

-0.015 (1.138)

0.00 (0.958)

F(3, 746)=0.319




11


Gender. Overall, significant differences exist between how male and female respondents evaluate Factor 2 (p-value = 0.042). Specifically, male respondents evaluate Factor 2 less favorably than female respondents (See Figure 5 and/ or Table 10). Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, differences exist in how male and female respondents evaluate Factor 2 (respective mean factor scores of -0.193 and 0.018). In particular, a one-way ANOVA finds that male respondents have lower evaluations of Factor 2 than female respondents (p-value = 0.096; See Figure 5 and/ or Table 10). Online. Female respondents at the Online campus display higher evaluations regarding Factor 2 than Online male respondents (respective mean factor scores of 0.750 and -0.042). Yet, any differences that exist between respondents based on gender are insignificant (See Figure 5 and/ or Table 10). Southern California. On average, male respondents at the Southern California campuses evaluate Factor 2 lower than their female counterparts with respective mean factor scores of -0.086 and 0.007. However, these differences fail to achieve statistical significance (See Figure 5 and/ or Table 10).

-0.310

0.052 -0.001 -0.015 0.000

-3.868

-2.868

-1.868

-0.868

0.132

1.132

2.132


Figure 4: Factor 2 Mean Scores by Campus



12

Washington, D.C. At the Washington, D.C. campus, female respondents display higher evaluations of Factor 2 than male respondents (respectively, 0.050 and -0.400). However, these differences are inconsequential (See Figure 5 and/ or Table 10).




Mean (SD)

All Campuses* -0.148 (1.036)

0.035 (0.934)

0.002 (0.956)

F(1,745)=4.134

Chicago+ -0.193 (1.027)

0.018 (0.861)

-0.026 (0.901)

F(1, 304)=2.789

Online -0.042 (1.055)

0.075 (0.956)

0.052 (0.974)

F(1, 205)=0.464

Southern California

-0.086 (0.890)

0.007 (0.952)

-0.007 (0.940)

F(1, 149)=0.192

Washington, D.C. -0.400 (1.351)

0.050 (1.107)

-0.009 (1.143)

F(1, 81)=1.493


-0.148 -0.193 -0.042 -0.086

-0.400

0.035 0.018 0.075 0.007 0.050 0.002 -0.026 0.052 -0.007 -0.009

-3.868

-2.868

-1.868

-0.868

0.132

1.132

2.132

All Campuses* Chicago+ Online Southern California DC

Figure 5: Factor 2 Mean Scores by Gender

Male Female Total



13

Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, Black/ African-American respondents, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic display mean factor scores above Factor 2’s overall mean factor score (respectively, 0.008, 0.1150, 0.100 v. -0.001) while White respondents display a man factor score below the overall factor score mean (See Figure 6 and/ or Table 11). Nevertheless, a one-way ANOVA displays that the four race/ ethnic groups do not differ in how they evaluate Factor 2. Chicago. At the Chicago campus, Black/ African-American respondents, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group display similar factor score means (respectively, 0.056, 0.055, and 0.059) while White respondents display a negative mean factor score (-0.065). Despite the absolute differences that exist among White respondents and all other respondents, statistically all race/ ethnic groups evaluate Factor 2 equally at the Chicago campus (See Figure 6 and/ or Table 11). Online. Overall, respondents who identify as Black/ African-American, Latino(a)/ Hispanic, or respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group display mean factor scores above the Online average while White respondents display a mean factor score below (respectively, 0.010, 0.407, and 0.423 v. -0.032). Still, statistically all race/ ethnic groups within the Online campus evaluate Factor 2 equally (See Figure 6 and/ or Table 11).

Note: * p-value < .05; + p-value < .10

-0.052

-0.065

-0.320

0.014 -0.161

0.008

0.056

0.010 -0.015 -0.020

0.115

0.055

0.407

-0.820

0.474

0.100

0.059

0.423

-0.048 0.173

-0.001 -0.026 0.056 -0.026 -0.007

-3.868

-2.868

-1.868

-0.868

0.132

1.132

2.132

All Campuses Chicago Online Southern California Washington, D.C.

Figure 6: Factor 2 Mean Scores by Race/ Ethnicity




14

Southern California. Overall, White respondents display higher evaluations for Factor 2 than any other race/ ethnicity at the Southern California campuses. However, any differences that exist among the four race/ ethnic groups are insignificant. Thus, all groups based on race/ ethnicity evaluate Factor 2 equally (See Figure 6 and/ or Table 11).

Washington, D.C. Overall, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display evaluations higher than the campus’s average (respectively, -0.474 and 0.474 v. -0.007) while White respondents and Black/ African-American respondents display evaluations below the campus’s average (respectively, -0.161 and -0.020 v. -0.007). Yet, a one-way ANOVA reveals that any differences that exist among the four race/ ethnic groups are insignificant (See Figure 6 and/ or Table 11).


White Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD)

All Campuses -0.052 (0.986)

0.008 (1.025)

0.115 (0.781)

0.100 (0.918)

-0.001 (0.965)

F(3, 714)=1.086

Chicago -0.065 (0.959)

0.056 (0.857)

0.055 (0.808)

0.059 (0.716)

-0.026 (0.908)

F(3, 288)=0.377

Online -0.032 (1.029)

0.010 (0.991)

0.407 (0.745)

0.423 (0.822)

0.056 (0.987)

F(3, 194)=1.782

Southern California

0.014 (0.934)

-0.015 (1.016)

-0.082 (0.757)

-0.048 (1.153)

-0.026 (0.939)

F(3, 143)=0.081

Washington, D.C. -0.161 (1.137)

-0.020 (1.249)

0.474 (0.646)

0.173 (1.139)

-0.007 (1.115)

F(3, 78)=0.696




15

Factor 3: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Integrates Professional Practice for

Working with Diverse Populations. Factor 3 consists of three statements evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1), Somewhat Disagree (2), Somewhat Agree (3), to Strongly Agree (4). Overall, respondents evaluate Factor 3 positively indicating agreement with the factor: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diverse populations with the average responses ranging from Somewhat Agree (3) to Strongly Agree (4) (See Table 12). Table 12: Mean Likert Scale Responses for Factor 3

Factor 3: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diverse populations.


Age differences 3.2


Ethnic differences 3.4


Racial differences 3.4


Campus. The Chicago and Washington, D.C. campuses, on average, evaluate Factor 3 above the overall mean (0.000) while the Online and Southern California campuses evaluate Factor 3 below the overall mean (respectively, 0.066 and 0.158 v. -0.082 and -0.109). A one-way ANOVA reveals that there are slight differences (p-value < 0.10) in how the four campuses evaluate Factor 3. However, a Tukey post hoc test reveals that there are no differences between the campuses.13 For all intents and purposes, any differences that exist among campuses are statistically indistinguishable (See Figure 7 and/ or Table 13). Table 13: Difference in Factor Means by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

Factor 3+ 0.066

(0.889) -0.082 (0.938)

-0.109 (0.937)

0.158 (1.001)

0.000 (0.929)

F(3, 746)=2.607


13

The lowest reported p-value from the Tukey post hoc test is 0.144 which related to the Southern California campus and the Washington, D.C. campus.



16


Gender. Overall, male respondents, typically, evaluate Factor 3 less favorably than female respondents with respective factors means of -0.199 and 0.004. However, these differences are statistically indistinguishable (See Figure 8 and/ or Table 14).

Chicago. At the Chicago campus, male and female respondents display similar factor means (respectively, 0.062 v. 0.068; See Figure 8 and/ or Table 10). In fact, a one-way ANOVA confirms that male and female respondents at the Chicago campus evaluate Factor 3 identically (See Figure 8 and/ or Table 14). Online. On average, female respondents from the Online campus display a mean factor score of 0.007 (above the campus mean factor score) while their male counterparts display a mean factor score of -0.457 (See Figure 8 and/ or Table 14). A one-way ANOVA finds that female respondents have more positive evaluations of Factor 2 than male respondents (p-value = 0.005).

Southern California. On average, male respondents from the Southern California campuses have slightly lower evaluations of Factor 3 than female respondents (p-value = 0.062; See Figure 8 and/ or Table 14).

Washington, D.C. Once again, male respondents display lower evaluations of Factor 3 when compared to female respondents. Yet, these differences are statistically indistinguishable (See Figure 8 and/ or Table 14).

0.066 -0.082 -0.109

0.158 0.000

-3.401

-2.401

-1.401

-0.401

0.599

1.599


Figure 7: Factor 3 Mean Scores by Campus



17




Mean (SD)

All Campuses* -0.199 (1.067)

0.044 (0.890)

-0.001 (0.929)

F(1, 745)=7.735

Chicago 0.062

(0.978) 0.068

(0.867) 0.067

(0.890) F(1, 304)=0.003

Online* -0.457 (1.055)

0.007 (0.873)

-0.082 (0.938)

F(1, 205)=8.193

Southern California+

-0.449 (1.042)

-0.051 (0.911)

-0.112 (0.940)

F(1, 149)=3.549

Washington, D.C. -0.255 (1.261)

0.213 (0.955)

0.151 (1.005)

F(1, 81)=2.097

Note: * p-value < .05; + p-value < .10

Race/ Ethnicity. Typically, White respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display positive mean factor scores while Black/ African-American respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display negative mean factor scores (respectively, 0.045 and 0.066 v. -0.136 and -0.028). Yet, these differences are not significant (See Figure 9 and/ or Table 15).

-0.199

0.062

-0.457 -0.449 -0.255

0.044 0.068 0.007 -0.051

0.213

-0.001 0.067 -0.082 -0.112

0.151

-3.401

-2.401

-1.401

-0.401

0.599

1.599

All Campuses* Chicago Online* Southern California + Washington, D.C.

Figure 8: Factor 3 Means by Gender

Male Female Total



18

Chicago. White respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display positive mean factor scores (respectively, 0.156 and 0.186) compared to Black/ African-American respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display negative mean factor scores (respectively, -0.223 and -0.151) (See Figure 9). A one-way ANOVA reveals that there are differences in how race/ ethnic groups evaluate Factor 3: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diver populations (See Table 11). In fact, a Tukey post hoc test confirms that Black/ African American respondents evaluate Factor 3 slightly lower than White respondents (p-value = 0.099). However, differences do not exist among any other race/ ethnic groups at the Chicago campus (See Figure 9 and/ or Table 15).

Online. Within the Online campus, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display mean factor scores above the Online average while White respondents and Black/ African American respondents display mean factor scores below (respectively, 0.150 and 0.328 v. -0.210 and -0.097). Despite these absolute differences, all groups based on race/ ethnicity within the Online campus evaluate Factor 3 similarly (See Figure 9 and/or Table 15).

Southern California. With the exception of White respondents, respondents at the Southern California campuses display low evaluations of Factor 3. Black/ African-American respondents display the lowest evaluation (factor mean score of -0.217) followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (factor mean score of -0.157) and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (factor mean score of -0.142). Despite the absolute differences in the factor mean scores for each race/ ethnic group, a one-way ANOVA reveals that no statistical differences exist regarding how race/ ethnic groups at the Southern California campuses evaluate Factor 3 (See Figure 9 and/ or Table 15).

Washington, D.C. Black/ African-American respondents at the Washington, D.C. campus display evaluations for Factor 3 that are below the campus average (respectively, -0.046 v. 0.130) while all other race/ ethnic groups display mean factor score above the campus average. Despite the absolute differences that exist among the different race/ ethnic groups, a one-way ANOVA finds that no statistical differences exist in how race/ ethnic groups evaluate Factor 3 at the Washington, D.C. campus (See Figure 9 and/ or Table 15).



American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD)

All Campuses 0.045

(0.917) -0.136 (0.992)

0.066 (0.886)

-0.028 (0.922)

-0.002 (0.933)

F(3, 715)=1.681

Chicago* 0.156

(0.840) -0.223 (1.047)

0.186 (0.827)

-0.151 (1.032)

0.082 (0.894)

F(3, 288)=2.653

Online -0.210 (0.983)

-0.097 (0.961)

0.150 (0.633)

0.328 (0.746)

-0.103 (0.39)

F(3, 194)=1.809

Southern California

0.008 (0.916)

-0.217 (0.942)

-0.142 (1.058)

-0.157 (0.874)

-0.106 (0.949)

F(3, 143)=0.452

Washington, D.C. 0.247 (1.02)

-0.046 (1.065)

0.371 (0.694)

0.288 (0.725)

0.130 (0.993)

F(3, 78)=0.736




19


0.045 0.156

-0.210

0.008

0.247 -0.136

-0.223 -0.097

-0.217

-0.046

0.066 0.186 0.150

-0.142

0.371 -0.028 -0.151

0.328 -0.157

0.288

-0.002 0.082

-0.103 -0.106

0.130

-3.401

-2.401

-1.401

-0.401

0.599

1.599

All Campuses Chicago* Online Southern California Washington, D.C.

Figure 9: Factor 3 Means by Race/ Ethnicity




20

Student Experience with Faculty

Respondents were asked 4 questions that directly evaluate their experience with faculty. These questions are measured on a 5-point Likert Scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree where more positive values indicates higher levels of agreement. My faculty have been instrumental in my student experience at TCSPP. Campus. Overall, respondents display agreement with this statement with the average response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree with a mean of 4.129. A one-way ANOVA reveals slight differences in how the campuses evaluate this statement (p-value < 0.100). However, further examination through a post hoc Tukey test reveals that these differences are statistically non-existent (See Table 16). Table 16: Difference in Means for My Faculty Have Been Instrumental in My Student Experience at TCSPP by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) My faculty have been instrumental in my student experience at TCSPP.*

4.210 (0.850)

4.066 (1.059)

4.043 (0.986)

4.142 (0.932)

4.129 (0.950)

F(3, 1122) = 2.238


Gender. Respondents from all campuses display agreement with this statement. The typical response ranges between Agree and Strongly Agree as indicated by the overall mean of 4.126. From a campus wide perspective, male and female respondents evaluate this statement the same (respectively, 4.060 and 4.141; See Table 17). Chicago. The average response from Chicago respondents ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.215) with male respondents displaying a lower level of agreement than female respondents. This difference is significant at the 90 percent confidence level (See Table 17). Online. Overall, online respondents display agreement with this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.057). However, a one-way ANOVA reveals that male respondents display a lower level of agreement with this statement than their counterparts (respectively, 3.844 and 4.111). These differences are statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level (See Table 17). Southern California. Female respondents from the Southern California campuses display agreement with this statement with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree (a mean of 3.970) while responses from male respondents range from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.300). A one-way ANOVA reveals that females display lower evaluations of this statement than males. These differences are statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level (See Table 17). Washington, D.C. Overall, respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus display agreement when evaluating this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.133). Male respondents display a slightly lower level of agreement than female respondents (respectively, 4.000 and 4.153); however, these differences are negligible (See Table 17).



21

Table 17: Difference in Means My Faculty Have Been Instrumental in My Student Experience at TCSPP by Gender


Mean (SD) My faculty have been instrumental in my student experience at TCSPP.

All Campuses 4.060

(0.968) 4.141

(0.946) 4.126

(0.950) F(1, 1121) = 1.209

Chicago+ 4.079

(0.842) 4.246

(0.843) 4.215

(0.844) F(1, 477) = 2.862

Online+ 3.844

(1.198) 4.111

(1.031) 4.057

(1.070) F(1, 314) = 3.206


4.300 (0.883)

3.970 (1.002)

4.025 (0.989)

F(1, 238) = 3.753

Washington, D.C. 4.000

(0.935) 4.153

(0.936) 4.133

(0.934) F(1, 126) = 0.395


Race/ Ethnicity. At an institutional level, respondents of all races/ ethnicities display agreement when evaluating this statement. Across all groups, responses range from Agree to Strongly Agree with no statistical differences in how these groups evaluate this statement (See Table 18). Chicago. Respondents of all races/ ethnicities display agreement with this statement. Responses range from Agree to Strongly Agree for all groups (See Table 18). Online. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest evaluations of this statement (a mean of 4.345) followed by Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.083), White respondents (4.032), and respondents who identify as a different race or ethnicity (3.913). However, any differences that exist among the groups are statistically irrelevant—all the groups evaluate this statement the same (See Table 18). Table 18: Difference in Means My Faculty Have Been Instrumental in My Student Experience at TCSPP by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) My faculty have been instrumental in my student experience at TCSPP.

All Campuses 4.089

(0.937) 4.152

(0.978) 4.287

(0.909) 4.140

(0.901) 4.135

(0.940) F(3, 1071) = 1.738

Chicago 4.196

(0.840) 4.052

(0.999) 4.377

(0.790) 4.340

(0.668) 4.214

(0.842) F(3, 455) = 1.789

Online 4.032

(1.022) 4.083

(1.111) 4.345

(1.111) 3.913

(1.125) 4.069

(1.067) F(3, 299) = 0.876

Southern California

3.907 (1.032)

4.205 (0.851)

4.154 (0.937)

4.000 (1.014)

4.035 (0.977)

F(3, 225) = 1.271


(0.953) 4.272

(0.870) 4.417

(0.669) 4.000

(0.953) 4.161

(0.896) F(3, 120) = 1.231




22

Southern California. Black/ African American respondents display the highest evaluations of this statement with a mean of 4.205 followed by Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 4.154), respondents who identify as a different race or ethnicity (a mean of 4.000), and White respondents (a mean of 3.907). Yet, these differences are null (See Table 18). Washington, D.C. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest evaluations of this statement (a mean of 4.417) followed by Black/ African American respondents (4.272), and White respondents and respondents who identify as a different race or ethnicity both display a mean of 4.000. Again, any differences that exist among the groups are minor (See Table 18). I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development. Campus. On average, respondents display agreement with this statement (a mean of 4.260). The typical response ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree. Yet, a one-way ANOVA reveals that differences exist in how the campuses evaluate this statement. Specifically, respondents from the Online campus display significantly lower evaluations of this statement than any other campus and respondents from the Southern California campuses display lower evaluations than respondents from the Chicago campus (See Table 19). Table 19: Difference in Means for I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Support of My Professional Development by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development.*

4.542 (0.738)

3.780 (1.251)

4.231 (1.014)

4.441 (0.981)

4.260 (1.031)

F(3, 1122) = 38.331


Gender. Overall, female respondents display slightly higher levels of agreement with this statement than male respondents (respectively, 4.279 and 4.169). However, these differences are statistically indistinguishable from one another (See Table 20). Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, female respondents display higher levels of agreement than male respondents (respectively, 4.572 and 4.472) with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree. Yet, these differences are insignificant (See Table 20). Online. Female respondents display higher levels of agreement with this statement than male respondents (respectively, 3.802 and 3.609) with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree. Any differences that exist between respondents based on gender are negligible (See Table 20).



23

Table 20: Difference in Means I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Support of My Professional Development by Gender


Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development.

All Campuses 4.169

(1.150) 4.279

(1.004) 4.259

(1.032) F(1, 1121) = 1.861

Chicago 4.472

(0.827) 4.572

(0.709) 4.553

(0.732) F(1, 478) = 1.349

Online 3.609

(1.497) 3.802

(1.192) 3.763

(1.259) F(1, 315) = 1.200

Southern California

4.325 (0.859)

4.191 (1.037)

4.213 (1.009)

F(1, 237) = 0.587


(0.712) 4.441

(1.015) 4.438

(0.978) F(1, 126) = 0.013


Southern California. Male respondents display higher levels of agreement with this statement than female respondents (respectively, 4.325 and 4.191) with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 20). Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents from the Washington D.C. campus display agreement with this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree with respective means of 4.412 and 4.441 (See Table 20). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement with this statement (a mean of 4.385) followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.365), White respondents (a mean of 4.264), and Black/ African American Respondents (a mean of 4.141). A one-way ANOVA test reveals that there are no statistical differences in how different groups based on race/ ethnicity evaluate this statement (See Table 21). Chicago. Latino(a)/Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display the highest level of agreement with this statement with a mean of 4.660 followed by Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.621) and White respondents (a mean of 4.505). A one-way ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity has no statistical effect in how respondents evaluate this statement (See Table 21). Online. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement “I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development.” with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.035). The typical response from respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity, as White, or as Black/ African American ranges from Neutral to Agree with respective means of 3.875, 3.737, and 3.705. Despite the differences in responses, a one-way ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity has no effect on how online respondents evaluate the statement (See Table 21). Southern California. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with a mean of 4.250 followed by White respondents (a mean of 4.229), Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.227) and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.194). Regardless of race/ ethnicity the typical response ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree with no significant differences among groups (See Table 21).



24

Table 21: Difference in Means I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Support of My Professional Development by Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development.

All Campuses+ 4.264

(1.019) 4.141

(1.076) 4.385

(1.054) 4.365

(0.911) 4.263

(1.028) F(3, 1071) = 2.200

Chicago 4.505

(0.807) 4.621

(0.557) 4.660

(0.553) 4.660

(0.600) 4.553

(0.735) F(3, 455) = 1.301

Online 3.737

(1.213) 3.705

(1.262) 4.035

(1.375) 3.875

(1.329) 3.766

(1.251) F(3, 300) = 0.606

Southern California

4.229 (1.021)

4.227 (0.912)

4.250 (1.135)

4.194 (0.856)

4.228 (0.998)

F(3, 224) = 0.022


(0.968) 4.327

(1.037) 4.583

(1.165) 4.583

(0.515) 4.436

(0.981) F(3, 120) = 0.443


Washington, D.C. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display the highest level of agreement with the statement with a mean of 4.583 followed by White respondents (a mean of 4.489) and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.327). A one-way ANOVA reveals that all groups based on race/ ethnicity evaluate the statement the same. I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field. Campus. On average, respondents display agreement with this statement. Responses range from Agree to Strongly Agree with a mean of 4.001. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test reveal that online respondents display lower evaluations of this statement than respondents from the Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses. Additionally, Southern California respondents display lower evaluations than respondents from the Chicago campus (See Table 22). Table 22: Difference in Means for I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Career Guidance by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.*

4.301 (0.968)

3.426 (1.305)

4.030 (1.119)

4.236 (1.035)

4.001 (1.163)

F(3, 1119) = 40.506




25

Gender. Overall, female respondents report higher levels of agreement with the statement “I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.” than male respondents with respective means of 4.028 and 3.860). A one-way ANOVA further finds that female respondents are more likely to report higher levels of agreement with this statement than male respondents at the 90 percent confidence level (See Table 23). Chicago. Male respondents from the Chicago campus report significantly lower levels of agreement with the statement “I know at least one member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.” than female respondent with respective means of 4.114 and 4.345 (See Table 23). Online. Female respondents display higher levels of agreement when evaluating this statement than male respondents at the Online campus. However, these differences are not statistically significant at any conventional level (See Table 23). Southern California. Male respondents from the Southern California campuses report a higher level of agreement with the statement than female respondents with respective means of 4.200 and 3.975. Despite these absolute differences, gender plays no part in how respondents at the Southern California campuses evaluate this statement (See Table 23). Washington, D.C. Female respondents display statistically higher levels of agreement with the statement “I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.” than male respondents (See Table 23). Table 23: Difference in Means for I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Career Guidance by Gender


Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.

All Campuses+ 3.860

(1.203) 4.028

(1.154) 3.998

(1.164) F(1, 1118) = 3.441

Chicago* 4.114

(1.033) 4.345

(0.945) 4.302

(0.965) F(1, 474) = 4.163

Online 3.266

(1.461) 3.452

(1.276) 3.415

(1.315) F(1, 314) = 1.030

Southern California

4.200 (0.853)

3.975 (1.154)

4.013 (1.111)

F(1, 238) = 1.369

Washington, D.C.* 3.765

(0.970) 4.306

(1.025) 4.234

(1.031) F( 1, 126) = 4.171


Race/ Ethnicity. On average, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement than any other race/ ethnicity group with a mean of 4.196 and responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree. This is followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.079 and responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree), White respondents (a mean of 4.000 and typical response is Agree), and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.859 and responses ranging from Neutral to Agree). A one-way ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity has an effect on evaluations for this statement. Specifically, a Tukey post hoc test reveals that Black/ African American respondents have significantly lower evaluations regarding this statement than Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents. However, no other differences exist among the race/ ethnicity groups (See Table 24).



26

Chicago. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report the highest level of agreement with the statement “I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.” (a mean of 4.491) followed by White respondents (a mean of 4.288), respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.261), Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.259). A one way-ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity has no effect on how this statement is evaluated within the Chicago campus (See Table 24). Online. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with a mean of 3.655 followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 3.500), White respondents (a mean of 3.391), and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.372). However, any absolute differences that exist among the groups are statistically insignificant (See Table 24). Southern California. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with a mean of 4.222 followed by Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 4.115), Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.997), and White respondents (a mean of 3.938). While respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents have evaluations that range from Agree to Strongly Agree and White and Black/ African American respondents have evaluations that range from Neutral to Agree, these evaluations are statistically indistinguishable (See Table 24). Washington, D.C. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report the highest level of agreement when evaluating this statement with a mean of 4.500 followed by White respondents (a mean of 4.289), Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.127), and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.083). A one-way ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity plays no role in how this statement is evaluated at the Washington, D.C. campus (See Table 24). Table 24: Difference in Means for I Know at Least One Faculty Member at TCSPP Who I Can Go to for Career Guidance by Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.

All Campuses* 4.000

(1.144) 3.859

(1.196) 4.196

(1.176) 4.079

(1.106) 4.003

(1.159) F(3, 1068) = 2.738

Chicago 4.288

(0.989) 4.259

(1.001) 4.491

(0.775) 4.261

(1.042) 4.305

(0.973) F(3, 452) = 0.749

Online 3.391

(1.268) 3.372

(1.287) 3.655

(1.471) 3.500

(1.383) 3.419

(1.299) F(3, 299) = 0.413

Southern California

3.938 (1.116)

3.977 (1.089)

4.115 (1.215)

4.222 (0.866)

4.031 (1.098)

F(3, 225) = 0.730


(0.944) 4.127

(1.106) 4.500

(1.168) 4.083

(0.996) 4.218

(1.040) F(3, 120) = 0.564


I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair. Campus. The typical response for this statement ranges from Neutral to Agree indicating a low level of agreement (a mean of 3.782). A one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test confirms that campuses evaluate this statement differently. Specifically, respondents from the Online campus display lower evaluations than respondents from the Chicago,



27

Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses. However, respondents from the Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses statistically evaluate this statement in the same manner (See Table 25). Table 25: Difference in Means for I Have a Good Working Relationship with My Chair by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair.*

4.025 (1.067)

3.288 (1.318)

4.077 (1.001)

3.906 (1.330)

3.782 (1.218)

F(3, 660) = 19.754


Gender. On average, male respondents report a higher level of agreement than female respondents with respective means of 3.859 and 3.761. However, statistically gender has no effect on how respondents evaluate this statement (See Table 26).

Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, male respondents display a higher level of agreement when evaluating the statement “I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair” with responses ranging Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.313) while responses from female respondents range from Neutral to Agree (a mean of 3.955). In fact, a one-way ANOVA finds that, on average, female respondents at the Chicago campus report significantly lower levels of agreement with the statement “I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair” than male respondents (See Table 26).

Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus display similar levels of agreement when evaluating this statement (respectively, 3.373 and 3.266). In fact, a one-way ANOVA shows gender has no effect on how respondents from the Online campus evaluate the statement “I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair” (See Table 26).

Table 26: Difference in Means for I Have a Good Working Relationship with My Chair by Gender


Mean (SD) I have a good working relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair.

All Campuses 3.859

(1.182) 3.761

(1.227) 3.780

(1.218) F(1, 661) = 0.677

Chicago* 4.313

(0.971) 3.955

(1.087) 4.024

(1.073) F(1, 244) = 4.362

Online 3.373

(1.264) 3.266

(1.324) 3.290

(1.309) F(1, 226) = 0.264

Southern California

3.923 (1.093)

4.050 (1.028)

4.027 (1.037)

F(1, 144) = 0.319


(1.287) 3.893

(1.358) 3.894

(1.337) F(1, 64) = 1.817


Southern California. Typically, male respondents display lower levels of agreement than female respondents at the Southern California campuses (respectively, mean of 3.923 and 4.050). However, these differences are indistinguishable (See Table 26).



28

Washington, D.C. On average, female respondents at the Washington, D.C. campus display lower levels of agreement with this statement than male respondents with respective means of 3.893 and 3.900. However, a one-way ANOVA reveals that regardless of gender, male and female respondents evaluate this statement the same (See Table 26). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity report the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with an average response of Agree (a mean of 4.000). This is followed by White respondents (a mean of 3.839), Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 3.771), and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.610) all of whose typical response ranges from Neutral to Agree. Despite these differences, a one-way ANOVA shows that race/ ethnicity has no effect on how respondents evaluate “I have a good relationship with thesis or dissertation chair” (See Table 27). Chicago. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display the highest level of agreement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.381) followed by White respondents (responses range from Agree to Strongly Agree with a mean of 4.086), Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 3.786) and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.643) who have evaluations that range from Neutral to Agree. A one-way ANOVA finds that at the Chicago campus race/ ethnicity has some effect on how respondents evaluate this statement. In particular, a Tukey post hoc test reveals at the 90 percent confidence internal that Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report higher levels of agreement than Black/ African American respondents. However, no other differences exist among the race/ ethnic groups (See Table 27). Online. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display the highest level of agreement with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree with a mean of 3.533. This is followed by Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 3.400), White respondents (a mean of 3.290), and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 3.243). Any differences that exist among the different race/ ethnic groups are trivial (See Table 27). Table 27: Difference in Means for I Have a Good Working Relationship with My Chair by Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) I have a good relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair.

All Campuses 3.839

(1.211) 3.610

(1.228) 3.771

(1.172) 4.000

(1.114) 3.793

(1.204) F(3, 638) = 1.899

Chicago* 4.086

(1.078) 3.643

(1.367) 3.786

(1.067) 4.381

(0.921) 4.025

(1.073) F(3, 235) = 2.651

Online 3.290

(1.342) 3.243

(1.209) 3.400

(1.465) 3.533

(1.246) 3.301

(1.299) F(3, 215) = 0.246

Southern California

4.197 (0.910)

3.966 (1.180)

3.833 (1.053)

3.826 (1.154)

4.014 (1.154)

F(3, 139) = 1.203


(1.466) 4.080

(0.954) 4.500

(0.837) 3.750

(1.893) 3.984

(1.253) F(3, 60) = 0.573


Southern California. White respondents display the highest level of agreement when evaluating this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 4.197). This is followed by Black/ African American respondents, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity with



29

respective means of 3.966, 3.833, and 3.826 and responses ranging from Neutral to Agree. Yet, no statistically significant differences exist (See Table 27).

Washington, D.C. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement for this statement followed by Black/ African American respondents, White respondents, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity with respective means of 4.500, 4.080, 3.828, and 3.750. However, no differences exist (See Table 27).



30

Interactions with Peers

Respondents were asked three questions that evaluate interactions with their peers. These questions are measured on a 5-point Likert Scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree where more positive values indicates higher levels of agreement. My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive. Campus. Overall, Online respondents report having the most positive interactions with other TCSPP students (a mean of 4.407) compared to Southern California (a mean of 4.316), Chicago (a mean of 4.217), and Washington, D.C. (a mean of 4.117). A Tukey post hoc test reveals that Online respondents report having a positive interaction with other TCSPP students significantly more than respondents from the Chicago campus and Washington, D.C. campus (See Table 28). Table 28: Difference in Means for Positive Interactions with Other TCSPP Students by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.*

4.217 (0.740)

4.407 (0.671)

4.316 (0.716)

4.117 (0.871)

4.277 (0.738)

F(3, 1089) = 6.184


Gender. Overall, male and female respondents display very similar levels of agreement when evaluating the statement “My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.” with respective means of 4.256 and 4.279 (See Table 29). Chicago. Female respondents display a slightly higher level of agreement than male respondents (respectively, 4.218 and 4.191). However, any differences are completely negligible (See Table 29). Table 29: Difference in Means for Positive Interactions with Other TCSPP Students by Gender


Mean (SD) My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.

All Campuses 4.256

(0.729) 4.279

(0.740) 4.275

(0.738) F(1, 1088) = 0.154

Chicago 4.191

(0.737) 4.218

(0.741) 4.210

(0.740) F(1, 468) = 0.095

Online 4.344

(0.680) 4.414

(0.674) 4.400

(0.674) F(1, 298) = 0.522

Southern California

4.368 (0.786)

4.305 (0.699)

4.315 (0.712)

F(1, 233) = 0.255


(0.574) 4.114

(0.913) 4.091

(0.876) F(1, 119) = 0.564




31

Online. Female respondents report a slightly higher level of agreement when evaluating this statement than male respondents with respective means of 4.414 and 4.344. Yet, the absolute differences in the level of agreement are trivial (See Table 29). Southern California. Male and female respondents report very similar and statistically insignificant levels of agreement with individual means of 4.368 and 4.305 (See Table 29).

Washington, D.C. Female respondents display a slightly higher level of agreement with this statement than males with respective means of 4.114 and 3.938. However, these differences are insignificant (See Table 29).

Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, respondents of all race/ ethnic groups report very similar levels of agreement with the statement “My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.” Black/ African American respondents report the highest level of agreement (a mean of 4.343) followed by Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 4.319), White respondents (a mean of 4.265), and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.157). Any differences that exist among the groups are minor (See Table 30). Chicago. A Tukey post hoc test reveals that Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report a higher level of agreement with the statement than respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (significance is reported at the 90 percent confidence level). However, no other differences exist between the different race/ ethnic groups (See Table 30). Online. Regardless of race/ ethnicity, respondents evaluate this statement the same with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 30). Table 30: Difference in Means for Positive Interactions with Other TCSPP Students by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.

All Campuses 4.265

(0.717) 4.343

(0.770) 4.319

(0.831) 4.157

(0.672) 4.279

(0.741) F(3, 1041) = 1.756

Chicago+ 4.181

(0.757) 4.272

(0.732) 4.434

(0.747) 4.067

(0.654) 4.211

(0.747) F(3, 446) = 1.870

Online 4.420

(0.658) 4.421

(0.620) 4.321

(0.983) 4.333

(0.658) 4.404

(0.682) F(3, 283) = 0.254

Southern California

4.300 (0.682)

4.454 (0.663)

4.294 (0.729)

4.265 (0.751)

4.324 (0.699)

F(3, 221) = 0.653


(0.627) 4.135

(1.048) 3.917

(1.165) 3.818

(0.405) 4.102

(0.881) F(3, 114) = 0.707


Southern California. Respondents statistically evaluate this statement the same regardless of race/ ethnicity (See Table 30) with Black/ African American respondents display a mean of 4.454, White respondents 4.300, Latino(a)/ Hispanic responding a mean of 4.294, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity a mean of 4.265 (See Table 30). Washington, D.C. White respondents display the highest level of agreement with this statement (a mean of 4.186) followed by Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.135), Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 3.917),



32

and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 3.818). However, no differences exist in how different race/ ethnic groups evaluate this statement at the Washington, D.C. campus (See Table 30). I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class. Campus. Overall, Online respondents report the lowest level of agreement when evaluating the statement “I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.” with an average response ranging from Disagree to Neutral (a mean of 2.969) compared to responses from the Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campus which range from Neutral to Agree. In fact, a Tukey post hoc test finds that Online respondents report significantly lower evaluations of this statement than any other campus (See Table 31). Table 31: Difference in Means for Adequate Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.*

3.601 (1.063)

2.969 (1.255)

3.602 (1.098)

3.425 (1.090)

3.415 (1.158)

F(3, 1085) = 21.222


Gender. On average, female respondents report a higher level of agreement with the statement “I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.” than male respondents with respective means of 3.441 and 3.277. These differences are significant at the 90 percent confidence interval (See Table 32). Chicago. Regardless of gender, male and female respondents at the Chicago campus statistically evaluate this statement the same with respective means of 3.506 and 3.576 (See Table 32). Online. Male and female respondents at the Online campus statistically evaluate this statement the same with respective means of 2.787 and 2.996 (See Table 32). Table 32: Difference in Means for Adequate Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Gender


Mean (SD) I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

All Campuses+ 3.277

(1.208) 3.441

(1.144) 3.412

(1.157) F(1, 1084) = 3.226

Chicago 3.506

(1.109) 3.576

(1.083) 3.563

(1.087) F(1, 467) = 0.304

Online 2.787

(1.185) 2.996

(1.256) 2.953

(1.243) F(1, 295) = 1.370

Southern California

3.632 (1.239)

3.579 (1.064)

3.587 (1.092)

F(1, 233) = 0.074


(1.095) 3.467

(1.066) 3.405

(1.077) F(1, 119) = 2.643




33

Southern California. Male and female respondents at the Southern California campuses display very similar evaluations of this statement with respective means of 3.632 and 3.579 (See Table 32). Washington, D.C. Male respondents display lower evaluations of this statement than females at the Washington, D.C. campus. However, these differences are trivial (See Table 32). Race/ Ethnicity. Regardless of race/ ethnicity, respondents across all campuses statistically evaluate the statement “I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.” the same (See Table 33). Chicago. Race/ ethnicity does not have a direct effect on how respondents from the Chicago campus evaluate this statement (See Table 33). Online. Responses from the online campus do not significantly vary by race/ ethnicity (See Table 33). Table 33: Difference in Means for Adequate Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

All Campuses 3.446

(1.115) 3.318

(1.217) 3.482

(1.251) 3.315

(1.082) 3.409

(1.154) F(3, 1037) = 1.087

Chicago 3.606

(1.041) 3.309

(1.260) 3.698

(1.170) 3.378

(1.029) 3.558

(1.087) F(3, 446) = 1.870

Online 2.993

(1.187) 2.931

(1.246) 2.750

(1.578) 3.000

(1.095) 2.951

(1.237) F(3, 280) = 0.320

Southern California

3.583 (1.073)

3.682 (0.959)

3.608 (1.133)

3.412 (1.209)

3.582 (1.083)

F(3, 221) = 0.411


(1.110) 3.500

(1.197) 3.250

(0.866) 3.364

(0.674) 3.407

(1.088) F(3, 114) = 0.252


Southern California. Evaluations of this statement do not significantly differ by race/ ethnicity at the Southern California campuses (See Table 33). Washington, D.C. Responses from the Washington, D.C. campus do not vary by race/ ethnicity for this statement (See Table 33). I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class. Campus. Respondents from the Southern California campuses report the highest level of agreement with the statement “I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.” with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree and a mean of 3.634. This is followed by respondents from Chicago who report a mean of 3.537, Washington, D.C. respondents with a mean of 3.417, and Online respondents with a mean of 3.125. A one-way ANOVA reveals that Online respondents display significantly lower evaluations of this statement than respondents from the



34

Southern California campuses and Chicago campus—statistically no other differences exist among the different campuses (See Table 34). Table 34: Difference in Means for Taking Advantage of Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.*

3.537 (1.028)

3.125 (1.118)

3.634 (1.053)

3.417 (1.009)

3.435 (1.072)

F(3, 1085) = 12.323


Gender. Overall, gender does not affect how respondents evaluate this statement (See Table 35).

Chicago. Regardless of gender, respondents from the Chicago campus statistically display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement (See Table 35). Online. While females display a lower level of agreement when evaluating this statement than males, responses from the online campus do not vary according to a respondent’s gender (See Table 35). Table 35: Difference in Means for Taking Advantage of Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Gender


Mean (SD) I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

All Campuses 3.428

(1.057) 3.433

(1.076) 3.432

(1.072) F(1, 1078) = 0.004

Chicago 3.522

(1.072) 3.517

(1.030) 3.563

(1.087) F(1, 465) = 0.002

Online 3.197

(1.152) 3.089

(1.109) 3.111

(1.117) F(1, 295) = 0.450

Southern California

3.684 (0.933)

3.606 (1.071)

3.619 (1.048)

F(1, 229) = 0.175


(0.834) 3.448

(1.028) 3.413

(1.006) F(1, 119) = 0.929


Southern California. Respondents from the Southern California campuses statistically evaluate the statement the same regardless of gender (See Table 35). Washington, D.C. Responses do not significantly differ by a respondent’s gender (See Table 35). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, evaluations of the statement, “I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.” does not vary by race/ ethnicity at any conventional levels of significance.



35

Chicago. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how this statement is evaluated at the Chicago campus (See Table 36). Online. Statistically, race/ ethnicity has no effect on how Online respondents evaluate this statement (See Table 36). Table 36: Difference in Means for Taking Advantage of Opportunities to Gather with TCSPP Peers Outside of Class by Race/ Ethnicity

White

Black/ African

American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

All Campuses 3.442

(1.044) 3.383

(1.163) 3.489

(1.138) 3.346

(0.972) 3.425

(1.076) F(3, 1031) = 0.512

Chicago 3.468

(1.049) 3.685

(1.061) 3.481

(1.129) 3.600

(0.837) 3.509

(1.041) F(3, 444) = 0.796

Online 3.161

(1.040) 3.023

(1.158) 3.000

(1.440) 3.095

(1.136) 3.099

(1.124) F(3, 280) = 0.352

Southern California

3.656 (1.045)

3.614 (0.959)

3.771 (0.994)

3.242 (1.032)

3.611 (1.046)

F(3, 217) = 1.821


(0.879) 3.462

(1.146) 3.000

(0.953) 3.091

(0.701) 3.424

(1.008) F(3, 114) = 1.502


Southern California. Any differences that exist among the different race/ ethnic groups are statistically insignificant (See Table 36). Washington, D.C. No statistical differences exist in how the different race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate this statement (See Table 36).



36

Experience with Diversity Respondents were asked ten questions that directly evaluate their experience with diversity. The first three questions presented are measured on a 5-point Likert Scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The next six question items are measured on a 4-point Likert Scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree. In both instances, more positive values indicate higher levels of agreement. The final question was evaluated through an open-ended response. Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine. Campus. In general, respondents display agreement with this statement with the typical response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree across all TCSPP campuses. Online respondents display the highest level of agreement with the statement “Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.” with a mean of 4.403 followed by Southern California (a mean of 4.393), Washington, D.C. (4.386), and Chicago (4.252). Respondents from Chicago display slightly lower levels of agreement when evaluating this statement than Online respondents (Tukey post hoc: p-value < 0.100). However, no differences exist among any of the other campuses (See Table 37). Table 37: Difference in Means for TCSPP Has Provided the Opportunity to Interact with People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.*

4.252 (0.767)

4.403 (0.817)

4.393 (0.702)

4.386 (0.735)

4.337 (0.766)

F(3, 1014) = 2.937


Gender. Male and female respondents display a very similar level of agreement when evaluating this statement to the degree that there are no statistical differences (See Table 38). Chicago. For all intents and purposes, male and female respondents evaluate the statement identically (See Table 38). Online. When examining gender, a one-way ANOVA finds that evaluations of this statement are indistinguishable (See Table 38) Southern California. Unlike other campuses, male respondents display more agreement when evaluating this statement than female respondents with respective means of 4.515 and 4.368. However, a one-way ANOVA finds that these differences are statistically insignificant (Table 38). Washington, D.C. Any differences that exist between male and female respondents at the Washington, D.C campus are statistically tiny such that, male and female respondents evaluate the statement equally (See Table 38).



37

Table 38: Difference in Means for TCSPP Has Provided the Opportunity to Interact with People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Gender


Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.

All Campuses 4.311

(0.812) 4.341

(0.758) 4.336

(0.767) F(1, 1013) = 0.232

Chicago 4.205

(0.793) 4.259

(0.774) 4.249

(0.777) F(1, 432) = 0.329

Online 4.339

(0.920) 4.430

(0.779) 4.412

(0.808) F(1, 282) = 0.563

Southern California

4.515 (0.566)

4.368 (0.719)

4.399 (0.698)

F(1, 216) = 1.252


(1.027) 4.416

(0.682) 4.383

(0.732) F(1, 113) = 1.719


Race/ Ethnicity. Black/ African American respondents display the highest level of agreement (a mean of 4.411) with the statement “Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.” followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.408), White respondents (a mean of 4.319), and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 4.269). Yet, any differences that exist among the groups are minor (See Table 39). Chicago. Respondents from the Chicago campus display a very similar level of agreement when evaluating the statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 39). Online. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents from the Online campus display the lowest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with a mean of 4.185. All other groups display a mean evaluation between 4.416 and 4.512. However, a one-way ANOVA reveals that statistically the groups evaluate this statement identically (See Table 39). Southern California. Regardless of race/ ethnicity, respondents at the Southern California campuses display similar levels of agreement with the statement “Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine. In fact, responses are so similar that a one-way ANOVA finds no differences exist in how the different groups evaluate this statement (See Table 39). Washington, D.C. Once again, a one-way ANOVA finds that race/ ethnicity does not affect how respondents evaluate this statement (See Table 39).



38

Table 39: Difference in Means for TCSPP Has Provided the Opportunity to Interact with People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.

All Campuses 4.319

(0.782) 4.411

(0.745) 4.269

(0.805) 4.408

(0.706) 4.343

(0.769) F(3, 968) = 1.378

Chicago 4.270

(0.785) 4.115

(0.855) 4.273

(0.694) 4.333

(0.721) 4.257

(0.778) F(3, 412) = 0.738

Online 4.416

(0.707) 4.512

(0.805) 4.185 (1.78)

4.429 (0.926)

4.423 (0.811)

F(3, 268) = 1.109

Southern California

4.293 (0.778)

4.512 (0.631)

4.320 (0.713)

4.515 (0.566)

4.380 (0.705)

F(3, 204) = 1.452


(0.913) 4.373

(0.662) 4.333

(0.492) 4.400

(0.516) 4.402

(0.729) F(3, 108) = 0.147


Studying at TCSPP has increased my desire to work with underserved populations. Campus. Overall, respondents from all of the campuses display agreement with the statement “Studying at TCSPP has increased my desire to work with underserved populations.” The average response from each campus ranges from Neutral to Agree. It comes as no surprise that for all intents and purposes all of the campuses evaluate this statement equally (Table 40). Table 40: Difference in Means for Desire to Work with Underserved Populations by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has increased my desire to work with underserved populations.

3.897 (0.995)

3.835 (1.083)

3.883 (1.007)

3.807 (1.055)

3.867 (1.027)

F(3, 1012) = 0.352


Gender. In general, females at TCSPP express a significantly higher desire to work with underserved populations than males at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology (See Table 41). Chicago. Females at the Chicago campus express a significantly higher desire to work with underserved populations than males (See Table 41). Online. Females at the Online campus express a significantly higher desire to work with underserved populations than males (See Table 41).



39

Table 41: Difference in Means for Desire to Work with Underserved Populations by Gender



All Campuses* 3.475

(1.216) 3.947

(0.964) 4.062

(0.984) F(1, 1011) = 31.870

Chicago* 3.470

(0.960) 3.999

(0.945) 3.889

(1.001) F(1, 431) = 18.763

Online* 3.411

(1.372) 3.943

(0.996) 3.838

(1.099) F(1, 281) = 10.898

Southern California

3.636 (1.141)

3.914 (0.974)

3.872 (1.003)

F(1, 216) = 2.149

Washington, D.C.* 2.929

(1.385) 3.931

(0.941) 3.809

(1.050) F(1, 113) = 12.300


Southern California. Males and females at the Southern California campuses statistically express the same desire to work with underserved populations with the average response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 41). Washington, D.C. Female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus express a significantly higher desire to work with underserved populations than male respondents. The average female response ranges from Neutral to Agree while the average male response ranges from Disagree to Neutral (See Table 41). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents express a significantly higher desire to work with underserved populations than Black/ African American respondents and White respondents. The typical response for a Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree while responses for all race/ ethnic groups range from Neutral to Agree. All other race/ ethnic groups statistically express the same desire to work with underserved populations (See Table 42). Chicago. At the Chicago campus, race/ ethnicity does not affect a respondent’s desire to work with underserved populations—all groups evaluate the statement the equally (See Table 42). Online. All race/ ethnic groups from the Online campus evaluate the statement equally (See Table 42). Southern California. Latino(a)/Hispanic respondents express a slightly higher desire to work with underserved populations (p-value < 0.100). No other differences exist among the race/ ethnic groups (See Table 42). Washington, D.C. Within the Washington, D.C. campus, all race/ ethnic groups statistically express the same desire to work with underserved populations (See Table 42).



40

Table 42: Difference in Means for Desire to Work with Underserved Populations by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses* 3.829

(1.046) 3.794

(1.042) 4.123

(0.957) 3.912

(0.945) 3.869

(1.027) F(3, 966) = 3.392

Chicago 3.871

(1.015) 3.789

(1.016) 4.159

(0.888) 3.902

(0.917) 3.894

(0.994) F(3, 411) = 1.293

Online 3.768

(1.109) 3.827

(1.082) 4.000

(1.359) 4.048

(0.921) 3.830

(1.113) F(3, 267) = 0.624


3.744 (1.052)

3.791 (0.989)

4.180 (0.825)

3.909 (1.042)

3885 (0.996)

F(3, 204) = 2.184


(1.211) 3.760

(1.050) 4.167

(0.577) 3.700

(0.823) 3.821

(1.050) F(3, 108) = 0.520


Studying at TCSPP has increased my respect for people whose backgrounds are different from mine. Campus. Overall, respondents across campuses equally report that TCSPP has increased their respect for people whose backgrounds are different from their own with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 43). Table 43: Difference in Means for Experience with Respect for People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has increased my respect for people whose backgrounds are different from mine.

4.252 (0.806)

4.206 (0.894)

4.193 (0.909)

4.186 (0.851)

4.220 (0.857)

F(3, 1011) = 0.349


Gender. Generally, female respondents report a higher level of agreement with the statement “Studying at TCSSPP has increased my respect for people whose backgrounds are different from their mine.” than male respondents (See Table 44).

Chicago. Female respondents at the Chicago campus display significantly higher levels of agreement with this statement than male respondents (See Table 44).

Online. Female respondents from the Online campus display significantly higher levels of agreement than male respondents with the typical response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree compared to the average male response which ranges from Neutral to Agree (See Table 44).



41

Table 44: Difference in Means for Experience with Respect for People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Gender



All Campuses* 4.062

(0.984) 4.250

(0.824) 4.217

(0.857) F(1, 1010) = 7.085

Chicago* 4.072

(0.960) 4.276

(0.775) 4.237

(0.816) F(1, 432) = 4.226

Online* 3.911

(1.116) 4.286

(0.821) 4.212

(0.898) F(1, 281) = 8.061

Southern California

4.212 (0.927)

4.201 (0.904)

4.203 (0.905)

F(1, 215) = 0.004


(0.864) 4.230

(0.839) 4.184

(0.847) F(1, 112) = 2.408


Southern California. Statistically, male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with respective means of 4.212 and 4.201 (See Table 44). Washington, D.C. On average, female responses from the Washington, D.C. campus range from Agree to Strongly Agree while male responses range from Neutral to Agree. However, any differences are statistically trivial (See Table 44). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, a one-way ANOVA reveals that race/ ethnicity does not affect evaluations of this statement. The average response from each group ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 45). Chicago. Black/ African American respondents report a statistically lower level of agreement with this statement than White and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents. The average response for a Black/ African American respondent from the Chicago campus ranges from Neutral to Agree while responses for all other groups range from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 45). Online. Respondents from all race/ ethnic groups at the Online campus report a similar level of agreement with this statement (See Table 45). Southern California. Race/ ethnicity does not affect how respondents evaluate this statement at the Southern California campuses (See Table 45). Washington, D.C. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display the highest level of agreement when evaluating the statement with a mean of 4.417 followed by respondents who identify as a difference race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.400), White respondents (a mean of 4.290), and Black/ African American respondents (a mean of 4.059). However, any differences that exist among the groups are trivial (See Table 45).



42

Table 45: Difference in Means for Experience with Respect for People Whose Backgrounds Are Different by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses 4.224

(0.857) 4.119

(0.923) 4.326

(0.831) 4.272

(0.758) 4.219

(0.861) F(3, 968) = 1.772

Chicago* 4.309

(0.791) 3.846

(0.937) 4.318

(0.740) 4.191

(0.773) 4.240

(0.815) F(3, 412) = 5.043

Online 4.148

(0.899) 4.272

(0.895) 4.259

(1.163) 4.333

(0.658) 4.210

(0.909) F(3, 267) = 0.498

Southern California

4.012 (1.024)

4.209 (0.888)

4.367 (0.727)

4.364 (0.895)

4.193 (0.920)

F(3, 203) = 2.057


(0.835) 4.059

(0.904) 4.417

(0.669) 4.400

(0.516) 4.207

(0.832) F(3, 107) = 1.099


TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in age differences. Campus. Overall, respondents from all TCSPP campuses report agreement with the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in age differences.” with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree. Evaluations are so consistent among the difference campuses that statistically they all evaluate the statement equally (See Table 46). Table 46: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Age Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in:

Age differences 3.121

(0.752) 3.215

(0.751) 3.196

(0.737) 3.171

(0.830) 3.167

(0.758) F(3, 982) = 0.963


Gender. Overall, female respondents report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in age differences.” than male respondents with respective means of 3.199 and 3.006 (See Table 47). Chicago. Statistically, male and female respondents from the Chicago campus display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement (See Table 47). Online. Male respondents from the Online campus report significantly lower levels of agreement when evaluating this statement than females. On average, male responses range from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while, on average, female responses range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 47).



43

Table 47: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Age Differences by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Age differences

All Campuses* 3.006

(0.803) 3.199

(0.744) 3.166

(0.758) F(1, 981) = 9.232

Chicago 3.025

(0.763) 3.129

(0.759) 3.109

(0.760) F(1, 420) = 1.208

Online* 2.942

(0.938) 3.280

(0.699) 3.215

(0.760) F(1, 268) = 8.502

Southern California

3.094 (0.689)

3.204 (0.743)

3.188 (0.735)

F(1, 211) = 0.004


(0.949) 3.214

(0.803) 3.170

(0.826) F(1, 110) = 2.316


Southern California. Female respondents display a higher level of agreement than male respondents with respective means of 3.204 and 3.094. Yet, any differences are statistically minor (See Table 47). Washington, D.C. On average, female responses range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree while male responses range from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (respective means of 3.214 and 2.857). Despite these differences, a one-way ANOVA reveals that male and female evaluations of the statement do not differ at the Washington, D.C. campus (See Table 47). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, race/ ethnicity has no effect on evaluations of this statement. All groups display substantial agreement in their evaluation (See Table 48). Table 48: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Age Differences by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Age differences

All Campuses 3.153

(0.756) 3.246

(0.747) 3.213

(0.773) 3.111

(0.727) 3.178

(0.754) F(3, 936) = 1.113

Chicago 3.147

(0.749) 3.120

(0.799) 3.000

(0.778) 3.105

(0.727) 3.124

(0.755) F(3, 400) = 0.486

Online 3.157

(0.744) 3.225

(0.779) 3.417

(0.881) 3.400

(0.681) 3.221

(0.765) F(3, 254) = 1.207

Southern California

3.152 (0.753)

3.293 (0.642)

3.286 (0.764)

3.029 (0.717)

3.192 (0.730)

F(3, 199) = 1.175


(0.906) 3.289

(0.817) 3.250

(0.452) 2.900

(0.738) 3.193

(0.811) F(3, 105) = 0.736




44

Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, all race/ ethnic groups display very similar evaluations of the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in age differences.” (See Table 48). Online. All race/ ethnic groups within the Online campus report similar evaluations of the statement (See Table 48). Southern California. At the Southern California campuses, all race/ ethnic groups report a similar level of agreement with the statement (See Table 48). Washington, D.C. Like with the other campuses, all race/ ethnic groups report a similar level of agreement with the statement (See Table 48) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in disability differences. Campus. Respondents from the Online campus display the highest level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in disability differences.” with responses ranging Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 3.085) followed by respondents from the Southern California campuses (a mean of 3.035). The average response from the Chicago campus and Washington, D.C. campus ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree with the Chicago campus reporting a mean of 2.953 and the Washington, D.C. campus a mean of 2.836. A one-way ANOVA finds that respondents from Washington, D.C. report a significantly lower level of agreement than respondents from the Online campus. However, no other statistical differences exist across the campuses (See Table 49). Table 49: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Disability Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Disability differences* 2.953

(0.816) 3.085

(0.812) 3.035

(0.835) 2.836

(0.904) 2.992

(0.831) F(3, 969) = 2.856


Gender. On average, female respondents report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement than male respondents. The typical female response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree while the typical male response ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 50). Chicago. No differences exist between male and female respondents from the Chicago campus when evaluating the statement (See Table 50). Online. Male respondents from the Online campus report a significantly lower level of agreement with the statement than female respondents from the Online campus. Specifically, the average male response ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while the average female response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (respectively, a mean of 2.731 and a mean of 3.147; See Table 50). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses statistically display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement (See Table 50).



45

Table 50: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Disability Differences by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Disability differences

All Campuses* 2.828

(0.866) 3.028

(0.818) 2.993

(0.830) F(1, 968) = 8.093

Chicago 2.886

(0.816) 2.965

(0.821) 2.950

(0.819) F(1, 416) = 0.588

Online* 2.731

(0.910) 3.147

(0.790) 3.067

(0.829) F(1, 268) = 10.969

Southern California

2.879 (0.893)

3.052 (0.821)

3.024 (0.833)

F(1, 205) = 1.197

Washington, D.C.+ 2.429

(1.016) 3.214

(0.803) 3.170

(0.826) F(1, 109) = 3.488


Washington, D.C. Male respondents display a slightly lower level of agreement with the statement than female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus (p-value < 0.100; See Table 50). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display responses that range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree while White and Black/ African American respondents display responses that range from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree. However, a one-way ANOVA finds evaluations based on race/ ethnic groups do not differ from one another (See Table 51). Chicago. All race/ ethnic groups at the Chicago campus display similar levels of agreement with responses range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 51). Online. White respondents from the Online campus display, on average, lower evaluations than Black/ African American respondents, Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents, and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group. However, any differences that exist among the race/ ethnic groups are inconsequential (See Table 51). Southern California. Black/ African American respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group report an average response between Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while White respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report an average response between Somewhat Agree and Strongly Agree. However, these differences are negligible (See Table 51). Washington, D.C. Black/ African American respondents and White respondents report an average response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents and respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnic group report an average ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree. Yet, a one-way ANOVA reveals that any differences that exist among these groups are statistically insignificant (See Table 51).



46

Table 51: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Disability Differences by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Disability differences

All Campuses 2.996

(0.821) 2.913

(0.879) 3.089

(0.856) 3.020

(0.738) 2.993

(0.831) F(3, 926) = 1.230

Chicago 2.978

(0.805) 2.920

(0.804) 2.930

(0.986) 2.898

(0.680) 2.958

(0.813) F(3, 397) = 0.177

Online 2.993

(0.862) 3.053

(0.847) 3.200

(0.913) 3.350

(0.489) 3.059

(0.842) F(3, 254) = 1.320

Southern California

3.065 (0.833)

2.900 (0.871)

3.128 (0.769)

2.912 (0.866)

3.020 (0.831)

F(3, 194) = 0.807


(0.875) 2.714

(1.000) 3.000

(0.739) 3.200

(0.789) 2.844

(0.915) F(3, 105) = 0.958


TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in gender differences. Campus. Overall, respondents report substantial agreement with the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in gender differences.” with responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree across all campuses (See Table 52). Table 52: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Gender Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Gender differences 3.264

(0.701) 3.280

(0.786) 3.262

(0.765) 3.156

(0.884) 3.256

(0.759) F(3, 977) = 0.735


Gender. Generally, male and female respondents report very similar levels of agreement with the statement with responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 53). Chicago. Male and female respondents at the Chicago campus display statistically equal levels of agreement when evaluating the statement (See Table 53). Online. Male respondents report a significantly lower level of agreement with this statement than female respondents (See Table 53) with respective means of 3.076 and 3.338. Southern California. Male and female respondents at the Southern California campuses report a comparable level of agreement for this statement with respective means of 3.242and 3.254 (See Table 53).



47

Washington, D.C. On average, male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus report a similar level of agreement when evaluating the statement with responses ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 53). Table 53: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Gender Differences by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Gender differences

All Campuses 3.181

(0.896) 3.271

(0.750) 3.256

(0.759) F(1, 976) = 1.993

Chicago 3.222

(0.707) 3.267

(0.717) 3.258

(0.714) F(1, 420) = 0.255

Online* 3.076

(0.937) 3.338

(0.745) 3.287

(0.791) F(1, 270) = 4.760

Southern California

3.242 (0.751)

3.254 (0.767)

3.252 (0.763)

F(1, 208) = 0.007


(1.016) 2.907

(0.879) 2.847

(0.907) F(1, 108) = 0.141


Race/ Ethnicity. In general, a respondent’s race/ ethnicity does not affect how they evaluate the statement (See Table 54). Chicago. On average, responses are consistent and range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree for all race/ ethnic groups at the Chicago campus (See Table 54). Online. On average, responses for all race/ ethnic groups range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree with a one-way ANOVA indicating slight differences (0.100 > p-value > 0.050). However, a Tukey post hoc test finds no significant differences between any specific race/ ethnic group14 (all p-values > 0.100; See Table 54). Southern California. Responses from the Southern California campuses, on average, range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree with no significant differences among race/ ethnic groups (See Table 54).

Washington, D.C. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display an average response from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (a mean of 2.6000) while all other race/ ethnic groups display an average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean between 3.000 and 4.000). However, the results of a one-way ANOVA find that despite these differences responses at the Washington, D.C. campus do not significantly differ from one another with respect to race/ ethnicity (See Table 54).

14

Recall that a one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests are different. A one-way ANOVA tests whether the treatment effects are all equal, i.e. that there are no differences among the means of the groups—in this case, race/ ethnicity. On the other hand, a Tukey post hoc test examines were differences might exist among those groups. Therefore, it is possible for a one-way ANOVA to achieve significance while a Tukey post hoc fails to; thus, significance from a Tukey post hoc is not a sufficient condition of significance for a one-way ANOVA.



48

Table 54: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Gender Differences by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Gender differences

All Campuses 3.265

(0.726) 3.287

(0.805) 3.325

(0.778) 3.110

(0.790) 3.262

(0.759) F(3, 933) = 1.713

Chicago 3.313

(0.678) 3.200

(0.756) 3.273

(0.7884) 3.051

(0.759) 3.269

(0.710) F(3, 401) = 1.730

Online+ 3.175

(0.794) 3.354

(0.785) 3.542

(0.833) 3.500

(0.607) 3.289

(0.789) F(3, 256) = 2.468

Southern California

3.247 (0.728)

3.375 (0.740)

3.245 (0.855)

3.147 (0.784)

3.255 (0.770)

F(3, 196) = 0.549


(0.917) 3.204

(0.912) 3.333

(0.492) 2.600

(0.966) 3.167

(0.891) F(3, 104) = 1.579


TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in religious differences. Campus. Overall, respondents from the Chicago campus display a significantly lower level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in religious differences.” than respondents from the Online campus. The typical response from the Chicago campus ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while the typical Online response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree. No other statistical differences exist among the campuses (See Table 55). Table 55: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Religious Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Religious differences* 2.892

(0.836) 3.089

(0.876) 2.913

(0.893) 3.034

(0.902) 2.964

(0.870) F(3, 978) = 3.226


Gender. Overall, male respondents report a significantly lower level of agreement with the statement than female respondents with respective means of 2.794 and 2.999 (See Table 56). Chicago. Female respondents from the Chicago campus report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement than male respondents with respective means of 2.924 and 2.700 (See Table 56). Online. Male respondents from the Online campus report a significantly lower level of agreement with the statement than female respondents with respective means of 2.904 and 3.128 (See Table 56).



49

Southern California. Male and female respondents at the Southern California campus statistically evaluate this statement the identically with the average response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 56). Table 56: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Religious Differences by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Religious differences

All Campuses* 2.794

(0.896) 2.999

(0.860) 2.963

(0.869) F(1, 977) = 7.844

Chicago* 2.700

(0.802) 2.924

(0.849) 2.882

(0.844) F(1, 420) = 4.602

Online* 2.904

(0.975) 3.128

(0.858) 3.085

(0.884) F(1, 269) = 2.715

Southern California

2.909 (0.914)

2.916 (0.889)

2.915 (0.890)

F(1, 209) = 0.002

Washington, D.C.+ 2.643

(1.008) 3.094

(0.872) 3.036

(0.898) F(1, 108) = 3.142


Washington, D.C. Male respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus display a slightly lower level of agreement with this statement than female respondents (p-value < 0.100; See Table 56). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, respondents from all race/ ethnic groups evaluate this statement equally with a mean response near 3.000 (See Table 57). Table 57: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Religious Differences by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Religious differences

All Campuses 2.950

(0.860) 2.957

(0.915) 3.040

(0.923) 2.961

(0.832) 2.965

(0.877) F(3, 933) = 0.358

Chicago 2.941

(0.840) 2.660

(0.872) 2.833

(0.961) 2.850

(0.736) 2.886

(0.849)

F(3, 400) = 1.648

Online 3.015

(0.861) 3.078

(0.929) 3.280

(0.936) 3.330

(0.913) 3.085

(0.894) F(3, 255) = 1.222

Southern California

2.835 (0.912)

2.875 (0.883)

3.042 (0.922)

2.912 (0.900)

2.906 (0.903)

F(3, 197) = 0.534


(0.928) 3.082

(0.932) 3.083

(0.900) 3.100

(0.738) 3.046

(0.901) F(3, 104) = 0.122




50

Chicago. Respondents from the Chicago campus statistically display the same evaluations of this statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 57). Online. Race/ ethnicity has no statistical effect on how Online respondents evaluate this statement. The average response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree for all race/ ethnic groups (See Table 57). Southern California. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity display an average response that ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (a mean of 3.042) while all other race/ ethnic groups display an average response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (a mean between 2.000 and 3.000). However, the results of a one-way ANOVA find that despite these differences responses from the Southern California campuses do not significantly differ from one another with respect to race/ ethnicity (See Table 57). Washington, D.C. Race/ ethnicity has no statistical effect on how respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate this statement. All race/ ethnic groups display a mean response near 3.000 (See Table 57). TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in sexual orientation differences. Campus. Overall, respondents from all campuses display extremely similar evaluations of the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in sexual orientation differences.” with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 58). Table 58: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Sexual Orientation Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Sexual orientation differences

3.163 (0.788)

3.019 (0.828)

3.151 (0.875)

3.046 (0.942)

3.109 (0.837)

F(3, 976) = 1.938

Gender. In general, male respondents display a significantly lower level of agreement with this statement than female respondents with the average male response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree and the average female response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 59). Chicago. Male and female respondents from the Chicago campus statistically display the same level of agreement with this statement with respective means of 3.088 and 3.175 (See Table 59). Online. Male respondents from the online campus display a slightly lower level of agreement with the statement than female respondents (p-value < 0.100; See Table 59). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses statistically display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with respective means of 3.091 and 3.165 (See Table 59).

Washington, D.C. The average response from a male respondent at the Washington, D.C. campus ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while the average female response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree. Despite these differences, a one-way ANOVA finds that male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus do not statistically differ in their evaluations of this statement (See Table 59).



51

Table 59: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Sexual Orientation Differences by Gender



All Campuses* 2.983

(0.942) 3.134

(0.811) 3.108

(0.837) F(1, 975) = 4.642

Chicago 3.088

(0.874) 3.175

(0.783) 3.158

(0.800) F(1, 421) = 0.773

Online+ 2.830

(0.995) 3.074

(0.790) 3.026

(0.838) F(1, 268) = 3.635

Southern California

3.091 (0.914)

3.165 (0.869)

3.153 (0.875)

F(1, 207) = 0.197


(1.204) 3.103

(0.895) 3.054

(0.942) F(1, 109) = 2.104


Race/ Ethnicity. In general, respondents of all race/ ethnic groups display the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in sexual orientation differences.” with responses or all race/ ethnic groups ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 60). Chicago. Race/ ethnicity does not affect how respondents from the Chicago campus evaluate this statement (See Table 60). Table 60: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Sexual Orientation Differences by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses 3.123

(0.822) 3.053

(0.890) 3.144

(0.904) 3.071

(0.824) 3.105

(0.848) F(3, 931) = 0.469

Chicago 3.204

(0.756) 3.143

(0.842) 2.907

(0.921) 3.077

(0.774) 3.153

(0.809) F(3, 401) = 1.822

Online+ 2.934

(0.809) 3.013

(0.881) 3.360

(0.907) 3.250

(0.786) 3.023

(0.846) F(3, 254) = 2.347

Southern California

3.180 (0.879)

3.225 (0.800)

3.146 (0.967)

3.030 (0.951)

3.156 (0.894)

F(3, 195) = 0.314


(1.024) 2.918

(0.997) 3.500

(0.522) 3.100

(0.738) 3.055

(0.951) F(3, 105) = 1.237




52

Online. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display a slightly higher level of agreement with the statement than White respondents (p-value < 0.100; See Table 60). Southern California. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how respondents from the Southern California campuses evaluate this statement (See Table 60). Washington, D.C. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate this statement (See Table 60). TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in socioeconomic differences. Campus. Overall, respondents from all of the campuses display the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in socioeconomic differences.” with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 61). Table 61 Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Socioeconomic Differences by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in: Socioeconomic differences

3.212 (0.777)

3.243 (0.820)

3.143 (0.823)

3.155 (0.880)

3.200 (0.810)

F(3, 973) = 0.729


Gender. On average, male respondents display significantly lower levels of agreement than female respondents when evaluating this statement with respective means of 3.064 and 3.228 (See Table 62). Chicago. Male and female respondents from the Chicago campus statistically display the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 62). Table 62: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Socioeconomic Differences by Gender



All Campuses* 3.064

(0.842) 3.228

(0.800) 3.199

(0.809) F(1, 972) = 5.786

Chicago 3.150

(0.781) 3.216

(0.788) 3.204

(0.787) F(1, 420) = 0.461

Online* 2.944

(0.960) 3.310

(0.778) 3.237

(0.829) F(1, 268) = 8.649

Southern California

3.063 (0.759)

3.160 (0.829)

3.145 (0.817)

F(1, 205) = 0.384


(0.949) 3.196

(0.862) 3.153

(0.876) F(1, 109) = 1.844




53

Online. Male respondents from the Online campus report a significantly lower level of agreement than female respondents when evaluating this statement. The typical response from an Online male ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while the typical female response ranges from Strongly Agree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 62). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 62). Washington, D.C. The average female response at the Washington D.C. campus ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree while the average male response ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree. However, a one-way ANOVA finds that these differences are not statistically relevant (See Table 62). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, race/ ethnicity does not statistically affect how respondents evaluate this statement. Responses for all race/ ethnic groups range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 63). Chicago. Black/ African American respondents display a slightly lower level of agreement with the statement than White respondents (p-value < 0.100; See Table 63). Online. Race/ ethnicity does not affect how respondents from the Online campus evaluate the statement “TCSPP has contributed to my ability to apply practical knowledge in socioeconomic differences.” The average across all groups ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 63). Table 63: Difference in Means for Experience with Practical Knowledge of Socioeconomic Differences by Race/ Ethnicity.


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses 3.215

(0.782) 3.146

(0.856) 3.320

(0.829) 3.130

(0.825) 3.205

(0.810) F(3, 929) = 1.510

Chicago+ 3.286

(0.742) 2.980

(0.854) 3.159

(0.834) 3.132

(0.811) 3.220

(0.777) F(3, 400) = 2.495

Online 3.131

(0.839) 3.290

(0.813) 3.500

(0.885) 3.333

(0.856) 3.229

(0.840) F(3, 254) = 1.701

Southern California

3.078 (0.807)

3.205 (0.732)

3.271 (0.893)

3.029 (0.870)

3.141 (0.825)

F(3, 194) = 0.830


(0.821) 3.000

(0.990) 3.583

(0.515) 3.300

(0.675) 3.165

(0.877) F(3, 105) = 1.651


Southern California. At the Southern California campuses, respondents of all race/ ethnic groups display the same level of agreement with this statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree for all ethnic/ race groups (See Table 63).



54

Washington, D.C. Responses from the Washington, D.C. campus range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree for all ethnic/ race groups (See Table 63).

Figure 10: Increasing Skills in Working with Diverse Populations Respondents were asked to describe two experiences while at TCSPP that have been influential in increasing their skills in working with diverse populations. Figure 10 provides a visual representation of these experiences by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects of those experiences. The most cited locations of these experiences include “class,” “work,” “course,” “practicum,” “TCSPP,” “cohort,” and “Professor.”



55

Experience with Education & Training Preparedness Respondents were asked to evaluate seven questions that relate to their experience with education and training preparedness. The first two questions presented are measured on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The next four questions presented are measured on a 4-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree. In both instances, more positive values indicate higher levels of agreement. The final question is evaluated through an open-ended response. My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare work. Campus. Overall, Online respondents report significantly higher levels of agreement than respondents from the Chicago campus and the Southern California campuses. On average, responses from the Online campus range from Agree to Strongly Agree while responses from all other campuses range from Neutral to Agree (See Table 64). Table 64: Difference in Means for TCSPP Developed my Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Prepare Scholarly Work by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.*

3.911 (0.969)

4.163 (0.946)

3.712 (1.094)

3.962 (0.924)

3.9412 (0.997)

F(3, 953) = 8.176


Gender. Generally, female respondents report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.” than male respondents (See Table 65). Online. Male and female respondents report the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 65). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses statistically display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with responses ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 65). Washington, D.C. On average, female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus report a slightly higher level of agreement than males with a mean of 4.000 while male respondents display a mean of 3.733. Yet, these differences are trivial (See Table 65).



56

Table 65: Difference in Means for TCSPP Developed my Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Prepare Scholarly Work by Gender


Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.

All Campuses* 3.778

(1.101) 3.977

(0.969) 3.939

(0.998) F(1, 952) = 5.838

Chicago+ 3.707

(1.128) 3.935

(0.945) 3.889

(0.988) F(1, 405) = 3.513

Online 4.069

(0.896) 4.210

(0.945) 4.179

(0.935) F(1, 266) = 1.027

Southern California

3.559 (1.284)

3.730 (1.043)

3.702 (1.085)

F(1, 206) = 0.706


(0.884) 4.000

(0.936) 3.962

(0.929) F(1, 103) = 1.059


Race/ Ethnicity. Black/ African American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display higher levels of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.” than respondents who identify as White or as a difference race/ ethnicity. While a one-way ANOVA finds that there are slight differences (p-value < 0.100) in how different race/ ethnic groups evaluate this statement a Tukey post hoc test finds no significant differences between any specific race/ ethnic group (See Table 66). Table 66: Difference in Means for TCSPP Developed my Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Prepare Scholarly Work by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.

All Campuses+ 3.887

(1.025) 4.059

(0.929) 4.066

(1.055) 3.832

(0.882) 3.943

(0.998) F(3, 910) = 2.450

Chicago 3.857

(1.035) 3.830

(1.007) 4.122

(0.900) 3.921

(0.673) 3.888

(0.988) F(3, 387) = 0.923

Online+ 4.081

(0.951) 4.205

(0.931) 4.615

(0.898) 4.133

(0.915) 4.177

(0.945) F(3, 251) = 2.405

Southern California

3.663 (1.010)

3.725 (1.037)

3.867 (1.160)

3.594 (1.043)

3.710 (1.087)

F(3, 196) = 0.485


(1.032) 4.217

(0.728) 3.583

(0.996) 4.000

(0.817) 4.000

(0.901) F(3, 98) = 2.091


Chicago. Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display a higher level of agreement with this statement than any other race/ ethnic group (a mean of 4.122). However, a one-way ANOVA finds that no differences exist in how these groups



57

evaluate the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work (See Table 66). Online. White respondents from the Online campus display a slightly lower level of agreement than Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondent (p-value < 0.100). However, no other differences exist between any specific race/ ethnic group (See Table 66). Southern California. At the Southern California campus, respondents of all race/ ethnic groups display similar levels of agreement when evaluating this statement with the average response for all groups ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 66). Washington, D.C. Black/ African American respondents display the highest level of agreement with this statement (a mean of 4.217) followed by respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity (a mean of 4.000), White respondents (a mean of 3.865), and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents (a mean of 3.583). However, any differences that exist among the race/ ethnic groups are trivial (See Table 66). My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research to inform my practice. Campus. Respondents from the Online campus display a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research to inform my practice.” than respondents from the Southern California campuses with respective means of 4.148 and 3.775. However, no other statistical differences exist among the campuses (See Table 67). Table 67: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed My Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Inform My Practice by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.*

3.969 (0.943)

4.148 (0.939)

3.775 (1.064)

3.913 (0.909)

3.968 (0.973)

F(3, 943) = 5.741


Gender. On average, female respondents display a significantly higher level of agreement than males with a respective mean of 4.005 and 3.796 (See Table 68). Chicago. Female respondents at the Chicago campus display a slightly higher level of agreement than male respondents (p-value < 0.100; See Table 68). Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus statistically evaluate the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.” equally (See Table 68). Southern California. Regardless of gender, respondents from the Southern California campus evaluate this statement similarly with the average response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 68).



58

Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents at the Washington, D.C. campus report the same level of agreement with the average response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 68). Table 68: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed my Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Inform my Practice by Gender


Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.

All Campuses* 3.796

(1.092) 4.005

(0.940) 3.966

(0.973) F(1, 942) = 6.693

Chicago+ 3.778

(1.107) 3.994

(0.913) 3.951

(0.957) F(1, 404) = 3.027

Online 4.000

(0.981) 4.205

(0.917) 4.162

(0.933) F(1, 258) = 2.102

Southern California

3.677 (1.147)

3.786 (1.043)

3.768 (1.059)

F(1, 205) = 0.304


(1.056) 3.966

(0.885) 3.914

(0.915) F(1, 102) = 2.079


Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, Latino(a)/ Hispanic report a slightly higher level of agreement than White respondents with respective means of 4.143 and 3.900 (p-value < 0.100). However, no other differences exist in how different race/ethnic groups evaluate this statement (See Table 69). Chicago. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how respondents from the Chicago campus evaluate this statement (See Table 69). Table 69: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed my Competency in Using Scientific Research and Theory to Inform my Practice


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.

All Campuses* 3.900

(0.987) 4.082

(0.930) 4.143

(1.011) 3.906

(0.934) 3.970

(0.977) F(3, 901) = 3.181

Chicago 3.881

(1.000) 3.978

(0.954) 4.225

(0.920) 4.057

(0.639) 3.944

(0.963) F(3, 386) = 1.708

Online 4.053

(0.968) 4.250

(0.881) 4.520

(0.918) 4.133

(0.990) 4.165 (0.60)

F(3, 244) = 2.033

Southern California

3.750 (1.005)

3.718 (1.050)

3.978 (1.097)

3.677 (1.166)

3.784 (1.058)

F(3, 195) = 0.684


(0.978) 4.136

(0.824) 3.833

(0.937) 4.000

(0.817) 3.941

(0.904) F(3, 97) = 1.417




59

Online. Regardless of race/ ethnicity, Online respondents display the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 69). Southern California. All race/ ethnic groups from the Southern California campuses statistically display the same level for agreement with the statement with the typical response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 69). Washington, D.C. White respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents display a lower level of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.” than respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity and Black/ African American respondents. However, these differences are negligible (See Table 69). TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Critical Thinking. Campus. On average, responses from campuses range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree with a one-way ANOVA indicating that slight differences exist (0.100 > p-value > 0.050). However, a Tukey post hoc test finds no significant differences between any campus (all p-values > 0.100; See Table 70). Table 70: Difference in Means for Critical Thinking by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas:

Critical Thinking + 3.439

(0.658) 3.553

(0.691) 3.414

(0.729) 3.402

(0.729) 3.460

(0.683) F(3, 986) = 2.366


Gender. On average, females display a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Critical Thinking.” than male respondents with respective means of 3.494 and 3.289 (See Table 71). Chicago. Female respondents from the Chicago campus display a significantly higher level of agreement than males with respective means of 3.499 and 3.122 (See Table 71). Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus display statistically equivalent levels of agreement (See Table 71). Southern California. Male and female respondents report the same level of agreement when evaluating this statement with the typical response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 71). Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 71).



60

Table 71: Difference in Means for Critical Thinking by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Critical Thinking

All Campuses* 3.289

(0.813) 3.494

(0.648) 3.458

(0.648) F(1, 985) = 12.960

Chicago* 3.122

(0.866) 3.499

(0.587) 3.426

(0.666) F(1, 423) = 22.238

Online 3.434

(0.888) 3.591

(0.645) 3.560

(0.670) F(1, 271) = 2.157

Southern California

3.394 (0.609)

3.402 (0.707)

3.401 (0.692)

F(1, 210) = 0.004


(0.726) 3.394

(0.767) 3.381

(0.760) F(1, 111) = 0.247


Race/ Ethnicity. Black/ African American respondents report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Critical Thanking.” than White respondents. However, no other statistical differences exist (See Table 72). Chicago. At the Chicago campus, all race/ ethnic groups report the same level of agreement with responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 72). Online. All race/ ethnic groups within the Online campus report the same level of agreement for this statement. The average response ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 72). Table 72: Difference in Means for Critical Thinking by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Critical Thinking

All Campuses* 3.408

(0.698) 3.592

(0.589) 3.544

(0.690) 3.437

(0.667) 3.470

(0.674) F(3, 942) = 4.364

Chicago 3.389

(0.671) 3.531

(0.581) 3.561

(0.634) 3.429

(0.737) 3.428

(0.665) F(3, 403) = 1.251

Online 3.529

(0.696) 3.680

(0.614) 3.600

(0.817) 3.524

(0.602) 3.580

(0.678) F(3, 258) = 2.033

Southern California

3.286 (0.723)

3.581 (0.587)

3.480 (0.735)

3.455 (0.564)

3.424 (0.681)

F(3, 199) = 1.990


(0.904) 3.440

(0.675) 3.583

(0.515) 3.200

(0.789) 3.391

(0.755) F(3, 106) = 0.662




61

Southern California. Statistically, all race/ ethnic groups display the same level of agreement for this statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 72). Washington, D.C. All race/ ethnic groups from the Washington D.C. campus report the same level of agreement with this statement with the typical response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 72).

TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills.

Campus. All TCSPP campuses display the same level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP has prepared me in the

following areas: Interpersonal Skills.” with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See

Table 73).

Table 73: Difference in Means for Interpersonal Skills by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Interpersonal Skills 3.378

(0.650) 3.376

(0.792) 3.406

(0.689) 3.241

(0.786) 3.368

(0.715) F(3, 983) = 1.411


Gender. Overall, females display a significantly higher level of agreement than males with respective means of 3.401 and

3.202 (See Table 74).

Chicago. Female respondents from the Chicago campus display a significantly higher level of agreement with the

statement “TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills.” than male respondents (See Table 74).

Online. Male respondents from the Online campus display a significantly lower level of agreement with the statement

than their female counterparts with respective means of 3.057 and 3.461 (See Table 74).

Table 74: Difference in Means for Interpersonal Skills by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills

All Campuses* 3.202

(0.828) 3.401

(0.684) 3.366

(0.715) F(1, 982) = 11.100

Chicago* 3.183

(0.788) 3.418

(0.616) 3.373

(0.658) F(1, 422) = 8.604

Online* 3.057

(1.008) 3.461

(0.718) 3.382

(0.797) F(1, 270) = 11.413

Southern California

3.485 (0.619)

3.382 (0.697)

3.398 (0.685)

F(1, 209) = 0.626


(0.770) 3.242

(0.797) 3.230

(0.791) F(1, 111) = 0.193




62

Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses report equivalent levels of

agreement with the statement with the average response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table

74).

Washington, D.C. Regardless of gender, respondents at the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate the statement in the

same manner with the typical response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 74).

Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, all reported race/ ethnic groups report the same level of agreement with the statement “TCSPP

has prepared me in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills.” with the typical response for all groups ranging from

Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 75).

Chicago. Evaluations of this statement do not significantly vary across race/ ethnic groups (See Table 75).

Online. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how this statement is evaluated. The typical response ranges from Somewhat

Agree to Strongly Agree for all race/ethnic groups within the Online campus (See Table 75).

Table 75: Difference in Means for Interpersonal Skills by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills

All Campuses 3.354

(0.701) 3.393

(0.744) 3.437

(0.721) 3.301

(0.725) 3.368

(0.716) F(3, 939) = 0.838

Chicago 3.365

(0.650) 3.449

(0.647) 3.439

(0.594) 3.238

(0.790) 3.370

(0.660) F(3, 402) = 0.947

Online 3.390

(0.790) 3.436

(0.731) 3.231

(1.032) 3.429

(0.676) 3.391

(0.790) F(3, 257) = 0.454

Southern California

3.342 (0.704)

3.372 (0.817)

3.540 (0.579)

3.364 (0.653)

3.401 (0.693)

F(3, 198) = 0.909


(0.844) 3.240

(0.771) 3.333

(0.888) 3.200

(0.789) 3.236

(0.801) F(3, 106) = 0.077


Southern California. Race/ ethnicity has no effect on how respondents evaluate the statement “TCSPP has prepared me

in the following areas: Interpersonal Skills.” (See Table 75).

Washington, D.C. All race/ ethnic groups within the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate the statement equally. The

typical response for all race/ ethnic groups ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 75).

TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Research Skills.

Campus. Respondents from the Online campus display a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement

“TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Research Skills.” than any other TCSPP campuses. However, no other

differences exist among the campuses (See Table 76).



63

Table 76: Difference in Means for Research Skills by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Research Skills* 3.113

(0.792) 3.487

(0.751) 3.087

(0.897) 3.071

(0.898) 3.202

(0.834) F(3, 986) = 14.587


Gender. Overall, female respondents report a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement than males (See

Table 77) with respective means of 3.225 and 3.081.

Chicago. At the Chicago campus, female respondents display a significantly higher level of agreement with the

statement than males with the typical female response ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree and the typical

male response ranging from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree (See Table 77).

Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus display a very similar level of agreement with respective

means of 3.509 and 3.502 (See Table 77).

Table 77: Difference in Means for Research Skills by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Research Skills

All Campuses* 3.081

(0.943) 3.225

(0.807) 3.200

(0.834) F(1, 985) = 4.262

Chicago* 2.902

(0.951) 3.161

(0.732) 3.111

(0.785) F(1, 421) = 7.303

Online 3.509

(0.800) 3.502

(0.730) 3.504

(0.742) F(1, 272) = 0.004

Southern California

2.970 (0.984)

3.101 (0.875)

3.080 (0.891)

F(1, 210) = 0.599


(0.784) 3.071

(0.918) 3.062

(0.899) F(1, 111) = 0.075


Southern California. Male and female respondents statistically evaluate the statement in a similar manner with

respective means of 2.970 and 3.101 (See Table 77).

Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents statistically display the same evaluations with respective means of 3.000

and 3.071 (See Table 77).

Race/ Ethnicity. Black/ African American respondents display a significantly higher level of agreement than White

respondents with respective means of 3.407 and 3.117. However, no other differences exist among the various race/

ethnic groups (See Table 78).



64

Chicago. On average, responses for all race/ ethnic groups range from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree with a one-

way ANOVA indicated slight differences (0.100 > p-value > 0.050). However, a Tukey post hoc test finds that no

significant differences exist between any race/ ethnic group (all p-value > 0.100; See Table 78).

Online. All race/ ethnic groups at the Online campus display statistically equal evaluations of the statement “TCSPP has

prepared me in the following areas: Research Skills.” with the average response for each race/ ethnic group ranging

from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 78).

Table 78: Difference in Means for Research Skills by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Research Skills

All Campuses* 3.117

(0.847) 3.407

(0.759) 3.276

(0.842) 3.157

(0.780) 3.207

(0.828) F(3, 942) = 6.676

Chicago+ 3.040

(0.804) 3.229

(0.778) 3.310

(0.680) 3.244

(0.699) 3.111

(0.783) F(3, 401) = 2.428

Online 3.457

(0.756) 3.603

(0.671) 3.577

(0.902) 3.429

(0.676) 3.510

(0.741) F(3, 259) = 0.799

Southern California

2.961 (0.924)

3.326 (0.808)

3.180 (0.896)

2.970 (0.770)

3.094 (0.877)

F(3, 199) = 2.002


(0.912) 3.300

(0.789) 3.000

(0.823) 2.800

(1.135) 3.091

(0.884) F(3, 106) = 1.847


Southern California. Black/ African American respondents and Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report an average

response that ranges from Neutral to Agree while respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity and White

respondents report and average response that ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree. However, any

differences in evaluations are statistically irrelevant (See Table 78).

Washington, D.C. Respondents who identify as a different race/ ethnicity and White respondents report an average

response that ranges from Somewhat Disagree to Somewhat Agree while Black/ African American respondents and

Latino(a)/ Hispanic respondents report an average response that ranges from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree.

Despite these differences, statistically all race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus report similar evaluations

of the statement (See Table 78).



65

TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Communication Skills.

Campus. All campuses display statistically equal evaluations of the statement, “TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Communication Skills.” with responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 79). Table 79: Difference in Means for Communication Skills by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic


Communication Skills 3.400

(0.657) 3.485

(0.727) 3.356

(0.728) 3.313

(0.794) 3.403

(0.709) F(3, 984) = 2.076


Gender. Overall, females report a slightly higher level of agreement than male respondents with respective means of

3.421 and 3.306 (See Table 80).

Chicago. Female respondents from the Chicago campus display a significantly higher level of agreement with the

statement than male respondents with respective means of 3.426 and 3.244 (See Table 80).

Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus do not significantly differ in their evaluations of the

statement (See Table 80).

Table 80: Difference in Means for Communication Skills by Gender


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Communication Skills

All Campuses+ 3.306

(0.810) 3.421

(0.684) 3.401

(0.709) F(1, 983) = 3.751

Chicago* 3.244

(0.810) 3.426

(0.616) 3.391

(0.661) F(1, 423) = 5.054

Online 3.359

(0.922) 3.528

(0.680) 3.495

(0.735) F(1, 269) = 2.267

Southern California

3.424 (0.614)

3.341 (0.743)

3.354 (0.724)

F(1, 210) = 0.370


(0.949) 3.333

(0.769) 3.310

(0.791) F(1, 111) = 0.709


Southern California. Male and female respondents at the Southern California campuses report the same level of

agreement with the statement with respective means of 3.424 and 3.341 (See Table 80).

Washington, D.C. At the Washington, D.C. campus, male and female respondents display the same level of agreement

with the statement with respective means of 3.143 and 3.333 (See Table 80).



66

Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, all race/ ethnic groups display very similar evaluations of the statement, “TCSPP has prepared

me in the following areas: Communication Skills.” with the average response for each group ranging from Somewhat

Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 81).

Chicago. All race/ ethnic groups at the Chicago campus report similar levels of agreement of the statement with group

means ranging from 3.65 to 3.476 (See Table 81).

Online. All race/ ethnic groups evaluate the statement equally with group responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to

Strongly Agree (See Table 81).

Table 81: Difference in Means for Communication Skills by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Communication Skills

All Campuses 3.365

(0.709) 3.491

(0.693) 3.465

(0.710) 3.369

(0.686) 3.407

(0.704) F(3, 940) = 1.968

Chicago 3.365

(0.678) 3.449

(0.614) 3.476

(0.594) 3.429

(0.668) 3.393

(0.660) F(3, 403) = 0.543

Online 3.463

(0.719) 3.571

(0.658) 3.500

(0.949) 3.524

(0.680) 3.504

(0.722) F(3, 256) = 0.371

Southern California

3.299 (0.727)

3.512 (0.736)

3.380 (0.697)

3.273 (0.674)

3.360 (0.713)

F(3, 199) = 1.015


(0.916) 3.360

(0.749) 3.750

(0.452) 3.200

(0.789) 3.318

(0.801) F(3, 106) = 1.830


Southern California. At the Southern California campuses, all race/ ethnic groups report similar levels of agreement with

the statement with “TCSPP has prepared me in the following areas: Communication Skills.” with responses ranging from

Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree for all race/ethnic groups (See Table 81).

Washington, D.C. All race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus report similar levels of agreement with

responses ranging from Somewhat Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 81).



67

Figure 11: Experiences at TCSPP that Have Been Influential in Helping Achieve an Education Goal Respondents were asked to describe two experiences while at TCSPP that have been influential in helping achieve their educational goals. Figure 11 provides a visual representation of these experiences by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects of these experiences. The most cited aspects include “help,” “class,” “Professor,” “experience,” “research,” “goal,” “course,” and “dissertation.”



68

Experience with Professional Development Respondents were asked to evaluate 5 questions related to their experience with professional development while at TCSPP. The first 3 questions presented are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale with responses ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree where more positive values indicate a higher level of agreement. The last 2 questions are evaluated through an open-ended response. My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner. Campus. Overall, the average response coming from each TCSPP campus ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree for the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner.” (See Table 82). Table 82: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed my Competency to Behave in a Professional and Ethical Manner by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner.

4.293 (0.784)

4.311 (0.895)

4.274 (0.809)

4.115 (0.943)

4.274 (0.839)

F(3, 990) = 1.594


Gender. In general, male and female respondents report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with respective means of 4.093 and 4.312 (See Table 83). Chicago. Within the Chicago campus, male and female respondents statistically display the same level of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner.” (See Table 83). Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus report similar levels of agreement with respective means of 4.151 and 4.360 (See Table 83). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses evaluate the statement equally with the typical response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree for males and females (See Table 83). Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate the statement equally with the typical response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree for both males and females (See Table 83).



69

Table 83: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed my Competency to Behave in a Professional and Ethical Manner by Gender



All Campuses 4.093

(0.897) 4.312

(0.823) 4.274

(0.840) F(1,989) = 9.810

Chicago 3.927

(0.843) 4.3692 (0.760)

4.284 (0.795)

F(1,424) = 21.488

Online 4.151

(1.099) 4.360

(0.854) 4.320

(0.908) F(1,273) = 2.287

Southern California

4.364 (0.653)

4.257 (0.828)

4.274 (0.803)

F(1,210) = 0.490


(0.917) 4.130

(0.950) 4.123

(0.942) F(1,112) = 0.047


Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, all race/ ethnic groups report similar levels of agreement with the statement “My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner.” with responses ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 84). Chicago. All race/ ethnic groups at the Chicago campus report statistically equally levels of agreement with the average response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 84). Online. No statistical differences exist in how race/ ethnic groups at the Online campus evaluate this statement. Responses for all groups range from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 84). Table 84: Difference in Means for My Education at TCSPP Has Developed my Competency to Behave in a Professional and Ethical Manner by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses 4.295

(0.814) 4.193

(0.911) 4.378

(0.816) 4.272

(0.744) 4.281

(0.830) F(3,946) = 1.421

Chicago 4.306

(0.765) 4.122

(0.857) 4.333

(0.817) 4.286

(0.805) 4.284

(0.785) F(3,402) = 0.814

Online 4.345

(0.882) 4.269

(0.976) 4.346

(1.056) 4.381

(0.590) 4.326

(0.906) F(3,260) = 0.152

Southern California

4.194 (0.889)

4.256 (0.759)

4.460 (0.646)

4.273 (0.761)

4.286 (0.788)

F(3,199) = 1.184


(0.905) 4.098

(0.985) 4.250

(0.965) 4.100

(0.737) 4.153

(0.926) F(3,107) = 0.923




70

Southern California. Within the Southern California campuses, all race/ ethnic groups report statistically equal evaluations of the statement with the typical response for each group ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 84). Washington, D.C. For all race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus, the typical response ranges from Agree to Strongly Agree with no statistical differences (See Table 84). Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally. Campus. Respondents from the Online campus report significantly higher evaluations of the statement “Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.” than respondents from the Chicago campus, the Southern California campuses, and the Washington, D.C. campus—no other statistical differences exist among the campuses (See Table 85). Table 85: Difference in Means for Studying at TCSPP Has Increased my Motivation to Grow Professionally by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.*

4.342 (0.812)

4.527 (0.833)

4.313 (0.842)

4.239 (1.011)

4.373 (0.853)

F(3,986) = 4.345


Gender. Overall, male and female respondents report very similar evaluations of the statement “Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.” (See Table 86). Chicago. At the Chicago campus, male and female respondents report similar evaluations of the statement with respective means of 3.963 and 4.421 (See Table 86). Table 86: Difference in Means for Studying at TCSPP Has Increased my Motivation to Grow Professionally by Gender


Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.

All Campuses 4.156

(0.991) 4.419

(0.815) 4.373

(0.854) F(1,985) = 13.696

Chicago 3.963

(0.999) 4.421

(0.757) 4.333

(0.828) F(1,422) = 21.160

Online 4.189

(1.145) 4.609

(0.741) 4.528

(0.849) F(1,271) = 10.853

Southern California

4.424 (0.708)

4.279 (0.861)

4.302 (0.839)

F(1,210) = 0.830


(1.027) 4.250

(1.019) 4.237

(1.016) F(1,112) = 0.136




71

Online. Male and female respondents from the Online campus display comparable evaluations of the statement with respective means of 4.189 and 4.609 (See Table 86). Southern California. Male and female respondents from the Southern California campuses report similar levels of agreement when evaluating the statement with respective means of 4.424 and 4.279(See Table 86). Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus report similar levels of agreement when evaluating the statement with respective means of 4.143 and 4.250 (See Table 86). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, all race/ ethnic groups report very similar levels of agreement with the statement “Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.” with the typical response for each race/ ethnic group ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 87). Chicago. At the Chicago campus, all race/ ethnic groups report similar evaluations of the statement with the average response ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 87). Online. All race/ ethnic groups from the Online campus display statistically significant evaluations of the statement with means ranging from 4.462 to 4.579 (See Table 87). Table 87: Difference in Means for Studying at TCSPP Has Increased my Motivation to Grow Professionally by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic


Mean (SD) Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.

All Campuses 4.336

(0.878) 4.429

(0.834) 4.472

(0.785) 4.330

(0.833) 4.374

(0.852) F(3,942) = 1.282

Chicago 4.304

(0.831) 4.347

(0.855) 4.500

(0.741) 4.333

(0.874) 4.333

(0.829) F(3,402) = 0.683

Online 4.511

(0.863) 4.579

(0.804) 4.462

(1.067) 4.524

(0.750) 4.527

(0.856) F(3,258) = 0.159

Southern California

4.143 (0.969)

4.442 (0.700)

4.440 (0.705)

4.242 (0.867)

4.296 (0.845)

F(3,199) = 1.820


(1.057) 4.216

(1.045) 4.583

(0.515) 4.100

(0.738) 4.261

(0.979) F(3,107) = 0.647


Southern California. All race/ ethnic groups at the Southern California campuses report statistically equivalent evaluations of the statement with the typical response from each group ranging from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 87). Washington, D.C. No statistical differences exist in how the various race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus evaluate this statement. Responses from all race/ ethnic groups range from Agree to Strongly Agree (See Table 87).



72

While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased. Campus. Overall, all of the TCSPP campuses report similar levels of agreement with the statement, “While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.” with the average response for each campus ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 88). Table 88: Difference in Means While Studying at TCSPP, my Professional Networking Activities Have Increased by Campus


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD) While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.

3.740 (1.057)

3.627 (1.283)

3.793 (1.081)

3.628 (1.248)

3.709 (1.148)

F(3,988) = 1.103


Gender. In general, male and female respondents display similar levels of agreement with the statement with respective means of 3.515 and 3.749 (See Table 89). Chicago. At the Chicago campus, male and female respondents evaluate the statement “While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.” with the same level of agreement. The average response for both male and female respondents ranges from Neutral to Agree with respective means of 3.439 and 3.799 (See Table 89). Online. Male and female respondents report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with means of 3.509 and 3.674 (See Table 89). Table 89: Difference in Means While Studying at TCSPP, my Professional Networking Activities Have Increased by Gender



All Campuses 3.515

(1.184) 3.749

(1.138) 3.708

(1.149) F(1,987) = 5.965

Chicago 3.439

(1.090) 3.799

(1.053) 3.729

(1.068) F(1,423) = 7.625

Online 3.509

(1.339) 3.674

(1.259) 3.642

(1.274) F(1,272) = 0.715

Southern California

3.667 (1.080)

3.782 (1.098)

3.764 (1.093)

F(1,210) = 0.310


(1.393) 3.670

(1.231) 3.632

(1.250) F(1,112) = 0.768


Southern California. Within the Southern California campuses, male and female respondents report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with respective means of 3.667 and 3.782 (See Table 89).



73

Washington, D.C. Male and female respondents from the Washington, D.C. campus report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with means of 3.357 and 3.670 (See Table 89). Race/ Ethnicity. Overall, all race/ ethnic groups at TCSPP evaluate the statement “While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.” in the same manner. For all groups, the average response ranges from Neutral to Agree with means ranging from 3.653 to 3.858 (See Table 90). Chicago. All race/ ethnic groups within the Chicago campus display the same level of agreement with the typical response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 90). Online. All race/ ethnic groups representing the Online campus report the same level of agreement when evaluating the statement with the average response ranging from Neutral to Agree (See Table 90). Southern California. Every race/ ethnic group within the Southern California campuses display a statistically equivalent evaluation with means ranging from 3.649 to 4.000 (See Table 90). Washington, D.C. All race/ ethnic groups at the Washington, D.C. campus report the same evaluations of the statement, “While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.” with means ranging from 3.579 to 3.784 (See Table 90). Table 90: Difference in Means While Studying at TCSPP, my Professional Networking Activities Have Increased by Race/ Ethnicity


American

Latino(a)/ Hispanic



All Campuses 3.653

(1.132) 3.759

(1.197) 3.858

(1.153) 3.738

(1.066) 3.713

(1.143) F(3,944) = 1.279

Chicago 3.675

(1.083) 3.714

(1.099) 3.857

(1.117) 3.857

(0.899) 3.717

(1.070) F(3,403) = 0.619

Online 3.640

(1.186) 3.662

(1.344) 3.539

(1.476) 1.317

(0.287) 3.639

(1.267) F(3,259) = 0.066

Southern California

3.649 (1.144)

3.884 (1.051)

4.000 (1.010)

3.667 (1.109)

3.788 (1.090)

F(3,199) = 0.276


(1.287) 3.784

(1.222) 3.667

(1.155) 3.600

(1.174) 3.685

(1.221) F(3,107) = 0.220




74

Figure 12: Experiences at TCSPP that have Been Influential in Achieving a Career Goal Respondents were asked to describe two experiences while at TCSPP that have been influential in helping achieve their career goals. Figure 12 provides a visual representation of these experiences by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects. The most cited aspects include “help,” “career,” “class,” “experience,” “practicum,” “work,” “professional,” “goal,” “Professor,” and “learn.”

Figure 13: Experience at TCSPP as an Active Learner Respondents were asked to describe two experiences while at TCSPP where they have been an active learner. Figure 13 provides a visual representation of these experiences by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects of being an active learner. These include “class,” “discuss,” “learn,” “active,” “experience,” “student,” “professor,” “group,” “peer,” “help,” and “engage.”



75

Experience with Co-Curriculars in Creating a Student Community & Professional Network

Respondents were asked to select co-curricular experiences at TCSPP that have been influential in creating a student community and professional network. Respondents were not limited in the number of co-curriculars they could select; thus, percentages of Table 91 will total more than 100 percent. Overall, the most cited co-curricular that has been influential in creating a student community is academic resources (70.8 percent) followed by training and development resources (40.7 percent), and new student programs (35.8 percent). The most cited co-curricular at each campus is academic resources (Chicago: 71.1 percent; Online: 72.4 percent; Southern California: 68.1 percent; and Washington, D.C.: 68.8 percent; See Table 91). Table 91: Experience with Co-Curriculars at TCSPP


Washington, D.C.

Total

Valid Percent (n) (421) (228) (204) (109) (962) Academic Resources 71.7% 72.4% 68.1% 68.8% 70.8% Training and Development Resources

41.1% 34.6% 46.6% 41.3% 40.7%

New Student Programs 36.6% 32.0% 35.8% 40.4% 35.8% Cultural Resources 41.1% 20.2% 27.0% 33.0% 32.2% Career Services 32.3% 26.8% 34.8% 20.2% 30.1% NCADE- National Center for Academic & Dissertation Excellence

21.4% 43.4% 29.9% 28.4% 29.2%

Applied Professional Practice 36.6% 10.1% 26.0% 25.7% 26.8% Student Leadership 23.8% 8.3% 15.7% 22.9% 18.3% Multicultural Programs or events

19.5% 5.3% 10.8% 17.4% 14.0%

Wellness Resources 9.7% 4.8% 9.8% 11.9% 8.8% International Education 8.6% 4.8% 11.3% 4.6% 7.8% Health and Wellness 6.4% 3.9% 5.9% 5.5% 5.6% Military & Veteran 5.0% 3.1% 2.9% 9.2% 4.6%



76

TCSPP Resources that Have Contributed Positively to Student Experience

Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the following resources have contributed positively their student experience at TCSPP. Resources were evaluated on a 3-point Likert scale (Not at all (1), Somewhat (2), and A great deal (3)) where higher values indicate a more positive contribution. Applied Professional Practice. Respondents from the Chicago campus report that Applied Professional Practice has contributed slightly more positively to their student experience at TCSPP than respondents from the Online campus (0.0500 < p-value < 0.100). However, no other differences exist among the campus and the average response ranges from Somewhat to A great deal (See Table 92).

Table 92: Difference in Means for Resources that Contributed Positively to Student Experience


Washington, D.C.

Total F-Statistic

Mean (SD)

Applied Professional Practice+

2.350 (0.684)

2.211 (0.855)

2.375 (0.729)

2.500 (0.642)

2.349 (0.717)

F(3, 597) = 2.109

Career Services* 2.050

(0.683) 1.915

(0.714) 2.177

(0.722) 2.000

(0.699) 2.046 0.704

F(3, 542) = 2.902

Field Experiences* 2.750

(0.543) 2.037

(0.901) 2.677

(0.576) 2.678

(0.628) 2.629

(0.662) F(3, 583) = 29.128

Financial Aid* 2.248

(0.768) 2.694

(0.554) 2.548

(0.650) 2.557

(0.558) 2.464

(0.695) F(3, 877) = 23.390

Health and Wellness* 1.787

(0.738) 1.713

(0.806) 2.035

(0.755) 2.068

(0.848) 1.864

(0.777) F(3, 490) = 5.174

Information Technology*

2.196 (0.641)

2.649 (0.594)

2.373 (0.665)

2.451 (0.684)

2.380 (0.664)

F(3, 913) = 25.436

Library Resources* 2.551

(0.546) 2.735

(0.500) 2.548

(0.648) 2.481

(0.636) 2.593

(0.573) F(3, 946) = 7.903

National Center for Academic & Dissertation Services*

2.038 (0.779)

2.365 (0.714)

2.2034 (0.757)

2.404 (0.704)

2.202 (0.762)

F(3, 574) = 7.781

Student Accounts* 2.027

(0.707) 2.396

(0.684) 2.305

(0.734) 2.454

(0.680) 2.230

(0.724) F(3, 792) = 16.637

Study Abroad 1.829

(0.913) 1.648

(0.795) 1.891

(0.875) 2.120

(0.927) 1.823

(0.884) F(3, 296) = 2.017

ACCESS Services 1.434

(0.731) 1.590

(0.864) 1.600

(0.751) 1.600

(0.828) 1.520

(0.778) F(3, 223) = 0.808


Career Services. The average response from the Chicago campus and Southern California campuses ranges from Somewhat to A great deal while the respective average response from the Washington, D.C. campus and Online campus ranges from Somewhat and Not at all to Somewhat. A Tukey post hoc test finds that respondents from the Southern California campuses report that Career Services has contributed more positively to their student experience at TCSPP



77

than respondents from the Online campus. Any other absolute differences in evaluations that exist among TCSPP campuses are statistically irrelevant (See Table 92). Field Experiences. The typical response from the TCSPP campuses ranges from Somewhat to A great deal with Online respondents reporting a significantly lower evaluation of TCSPP field experiences than any other campus (See Table 92). Financial Aid. On average, respondents from all TCSPP campuses report responses that range from Somewhat to A great deal with Chicago respondents reporting a significantly lower evaluation of financial aid than any other campus (See Table 92). Health and Wellness. The average response for respondents from the Southern California and Washington, D.C. campuses ranges from Somewhat to A great deal compared to responses from the Chicago and Online campuses which report an average response ranging from Not at all to Somewhat. A Tukey post hoc test reveals that Online respondents report a significantly lower evaluation of Health and Wellness resources than respondents from the Southern California and Washington, D.C. campuses and Chicago respondents report a significantly lower evaluation than respondents from the Southern California campuses (See Table 92).

Information Technology. All campuses report an average response that ranges from Somewhat to A great deal. However, respondents from the Online campus report a significantly higher evaluation than the Chicago, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campuses and Chicago respondents report significantly lower evaluations than respondents from the Southern California and Washington, D.C. campuses (Online: 2.649; Chicago: 2.196; Southern California: 2.373; and Washington, D.C.: 2.451; See Table 92)

Library Resources. The typical response from all campuses ranges from Somewhat to A great deal with Online respondents reporting statistically higher evaluations than any other campus (See Table 92). National Center for Academic & Dissertation Services (NCADE). Across all campuses, the average response ranges from Somewhat to A great deal with Chicago respondents reporting significantly lower evaluations of NCADE than respondents from the Online and Washington, D.C campus (See Table 92). Student Accounts. Respondents from all TCSPP campuses report an average response that ranges from Somewhat to A great deal. However, respondents from Chicago report a significantly lower evaluation than respondents from the Online, Southern California, and Washington, D.C. campus (Chicago: 2.027; Online: 2.396; Southern California: 2.305; and Washington, D.C.: 2.454; See Table 92). Study Abroad. The typical response from the Washington, D.C. campus ranges from Somewhat to A great deal while the typical response from the Chicago, Online, and Southern California campuses ranges from Not at all to Somewhat. Yet, from a statistical standpoint, no differences exist in how the various TCSPP campuses evaluate Study Abroad resources (See Table 92). ACCESS Services. Responses from all of the TCSPP campuses range from Not at all to Somewhat with no statistical differences among the campuses (See Table 92).



78

Recommendations for Improvement & Additional Feedback Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional information concerning their student experience at TCSPP through two open-ended questions. The first asks respondents to provide recommendations for improvement TCSPP and the other asks for general feedback about the respondent’s student experience.

Figure 14: Recommendations for Improvements at TCSPP Respondents were asked to provide two recommendations to improve TCSPP. Figure 14 provides a visual representation of these recommendations by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects. The most cited aspects of the recommendations include “student,” “more,” “class,” “program,” “school,” “course,” “time,” “Professor,” “work,” “need,” and “faculty.”

Figure 15: Other Feedback about your Student Experience at TCSPP Respondents were asked to share other feedback concerning their student experience at TCSPP. Figure 15 provides a visual representation of this feedback by illustrating the most frequently cited aspects. The most cited aspects include “student,” “experience,” “school,” “program,” “TCSPP,” “more,” “time,” “Professor,” and “feel.”



79

Appendices

Factor Analysis

In order to evaluate how different demographic groups assess their experience at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, we needed to categorize the

survey items. To do this, OIR researchers conducted a factor analysis to identify which items were answered similarly by respondents. This data reduction

method produced three unique factors. The factors were labeled by OIR researchers based on the question items. The following provides the correlation

matrices for each of the three factors.

Factor 1: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is a good fit for educational and professional objectives. q0006_0001: I have the support I need at TCSPP to achieve my research goals. q16: I am satisfied with my OVERALL academic experience at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. [RECODED] q0017_0001: I would recommend TCSPP to friends, family, and colleagues. q0017_0002: I made the right choice by enrolling at TCSPP. q0017_0003: My overall experience at TCSPP has met my expectation. q0017_0004: I feel a sense of pride attending TCSPP. q0017_0005: TCSPP has a good reputation within the community. q0017_0006: I feel welcomed by individuals at TCSPP. q0017_0007: I feel a sense of belonging at TCSPP. Table A.1: Item correlations of factor 1

q0006_0001 q16 q0017_0001 q0017_0002 q0017_0003 q0017_0004 q0017_0005 q0017_0006 q0017_0007

q0006_0001 1.00 q16 0.605 1.00 q0017_0001 0.624 0.813 1.00 q0017_0002 0.577 .791 0.875 1.00 q0017_0003 0.618 0.807 0.857 0.843 1.00 q0017_0004 0.601 0.751 0.837 0.819 0.836 1.00 q0017_0005 0.497 0.574 0.661 0.646 0.661 0.740 1.00 q0017_0006 0.501 0.596 0.649 0.626 0.645 0.635 0.550 1.00 q0017_0007 0.550 0.647 0.713 0.706 0.722 0.750 0.649 0.784 1.00



80

Factor 2 The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates theoretical knowledge for working with diverse populations. Please indicate the degree to which your education at TCSPP has contributed to your ability to apply THEORETICAL knowledge in the areas of diversity shown below q10_1: Age differences. q10_2: Cultural differences. q10_3: Disability differences. q10_4: Ethnic differences q10_5: Gender differences q10_6: Racial differences q10_7: Religious differences. q10_8: Sexual orientation differences. q10_9: Socioeconomic differences Table A.2: Item correlations of factor 2

q10_1 q10_2 q10_3 q10_4 q10_5 q10_6 q10_7 q10_8 q10_9

q10_1 1.00 q10_2 0.663 1.00 q10_3 0.641 0.589 1.00 q10_4 0.634 0.828 0.655 1.00 q10_5 0.702 0.741 0.663 0.795 1.00 q10_6 0.658 0.844 0.670 0.890 0.818 1.00 q10_7 0.612 0.603 0.729 0.666 0.676 0.687 1.00 q10_8 0.642 0.652 0.705 0.689 0.781 0.742 0.717 1.00 q10_9 0.656 0.701 0.657 0.739 0.732 0.749 0.685 0.725 1.00



81

Factor 3 The Chicago School of Professional Psychology integrates professional practice for working with diverse populations. Please indicate the degree to which your education at TCSPP has contributed to your ability to apply PRACTICAL knowledge in the areas of diversity shown below. q9_2: Age differences. q9_4: Ethnic differences. q9_6: Racial differences. Table A.3: Item correlations of factor 3

q9_2 q9_4 q9_6

q9_2 1.00 q9_4 0.788 1.00 q9_6 0.777 0.857 1.00



82

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Student Experience Survey Spring 2015 (n = 1,169)

Think about your experiences in The Chicago School of Professional Psychology's student-focused learning environment; please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. My faculty have been instrumental in my student experience at TCSPP.

(n = 1,166)

Valid Percent

Strongly Disagree 2.8

Disagree 4.3

Neutral 9.9

Agree 43.3

Strongly Agree 39.6

I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for support of my professional development.

(n = 1,166)

Valid Percent


Disagree 4.5

Neutral 8.9

Agree 28.7

Strongly Agree 54.3

I know at least one faculty member at TCSPP who I can go to for career guidance, including options in my field.

(n = 1,163)

Valid Percent


Disagree 7.8

Neutral 13.2

Agree 29.7

Strongly Agree 44.1



83

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement using the scale provided.

I have a good relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair.

(n = 687)

Valid Percent


Disagree 7.6

Neutral 24.0

Agree 24.3

Strongly Agree 37.1

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. I have a good relationship with my thesis or dissertation chair. My interactions with other students at TCSPP are positive.

(n= 1,129)

Valid Percent


Disagree 1.5

Neutral 8.6

Agree 48.2

Strongly Agree 41.0

I have adequate opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

(n= 1,125)

Valid Percent


Disagree 15.4

Neutral 25.2

Agree 34.4

Strongly Agree 17.6

I take advantage of opportunities to gather with peers from TCSPP outside of class.

(n= 1,119)

Valid Percent


Disagree 14.4

Neutral 30.0

Agree 34.6

Strongly Agree 16.0



84

Please select the co-curricular experiences you have engaged in at TCSPP that have been most influential in helping you create a student community and professional network. Check all that may apply.

(n = 1,169)

Valid Percent

Academic resources (e.g. academic assistance, lectures, presentations)

58.3

Cultural resources (e.g. academic assistance, lectures, presentations)

26.5

Training and development resources (e.g. academic assistance, lectures, presentations)

33.5

Wellness resources (e.g. academic assistance, lectures, presentations)

7.3

NCADE – National Center for Academic & Dissertation Excellence

24.0

Career Services (e.g. resume. interviewing, online tools) 24.8

International Education (e.g. international student services, study abroad)

6.4

Health and Wellness (e.g. student solutions, programming) 4.6

Student Leadership (e.g. student organizations) 15.1

Multicultural programs or events (e.g. LBGT Safe Zone training)

11.5

Military & Veteran (e.g. programming) 3.8

New Student Programs (e.g. new student orientation) 29.4

Applied Professional Practice (e.g. lectures and trainings- CEUs)

22.1

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. If the statement does not apply to your program, please select "N/A". I have the support I need at TCSPP to achieve my research goals.

(n = 935)

Valid Percent


Disagree 10.5

Neutral 20.5

Agree 38.0

Strongly Agree 26.0



85

My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to prepare scholarly work.

(n = 991)

Valid Percent


Disagree 7.3

Neutral 15.8

Agree 42.2

Strongly Agree 32.1

My education at TCSPP has developed my competency in using scientific research and theory to inform my practice.

(n = 980)

Valid Percent


Disagree 6.6

Neutral 14.2

Agree 44.9

Strongly Agree 31.7

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. Studying at TCSPP has provided me the opportunity to interact with people whose backgrounds are different from mine.

(n = 1,054)

Valid Percent


Disagree 2.1

Neutral 6.8

Agree 42.9

Strongly Agree 47.3

Studying at TCSPP has increased my desire to work with underserved populations.

(a mean = 3.9) (n = 1,052)

Valid Percent


Disagree 7.9

Neutral 22.4

Agree 35.1

Strongly Agree 32.1



86

Studying at TCSPP has increased my respect for people whose backgrounds are different from mine.

(n = 1,051)

Valid Percent


Disagree 3.1

Neutral 14.9

Agree 36.1

Strongly Agree 45.2

Please indicate the degree to which your education at TCSPP has contributed to your ability to apply PRACTICAL knowledge in the areas of diversity shown below. Age differences

(n = 1,020)

Valid Percent


Somewhat Disagree 11.7

Somewhat Agree 49.9

Strongly Agree 34.9

Cultural differences

(n = 1,025)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 35.9

Strongly Agree 56.7

Disability differences

(n= 1,009)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 45.9

Strongly Agree 28.9



87

Ethnic differences

(n = 1,026)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 40.4

Strongly Agree 49.7

Gender differences

(n = 1,017)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 44.4

Strongly Agree 42.1

Racial differences

(n = 1,021)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 38.4

Strongly Agree 50.0

Religious differences

(n = 1,017)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 43.9

Strongly Agree 29.5

Sexual orientation differences

(n = 1,016)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 44.6

Strongly Agree 36.1



88

Socioeconomic differences

(n = 1,013)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 41.8

Strongly Agree 40.9

Please indicate the degree to which your education at TCSPP has contributed to your ability to apply THEORETICAL knowledge in the areas of diversity shown below. Age differences

(n = 1,015)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 48.5

Strongly Agree 35.2

Cultural differences

(a mean = 3.4) (n = 1,014)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 43.8

Strongly Agree 48.5

Disability differences

(a mean = 3.0) (n = 1,009)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 46.8

Strongly Agree 31.2



89

Ethnic differences

(n = 1,018)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 45.2

Strongly Agree 43.8

Gender differences

(n = 1,013)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 46.4

Strongly Agree 40.6

Racial differences

(n = 1,015)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 44.8

Strongly Agree 43.5

Religious differences

(n = 1,014)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 45.2

Strongly Agree 29.5

Sexual orientation differences

(n = 1,014)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 46.4

Strongly Agree 34.3



90

Socioeconomic differences

(n = 1,010)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 47.7

Strongly Agree 37.2

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. My education at TCSPP has developed my competency to behave in a professional and ethical manner.

(n = 1,030)

Valid Percent


Disagree 2.8

Neutral 11.5

Agree 37.4

Strongly Agree 47.4

Studying at TCSPP has increased my motivation to grow professionally.

(n = 1,026)

Valid Percent


Disagree 2.9

Neutral 8.6

Agree 31.9

Strongly Agree 55.3

While studying at TCSPP, my professional networking activities have increased.

(n = 1,028)

Valid Percent


Disagree 11.5

Neutral 20.0

Agree 34.5

Strongly Agree 28.8



91

Please indicate the degree to which your education and training at TCSPP has prepared you in the following areas: Critical Thinking (e.g. ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking)

(n = 1,026)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 37.3

Strongly Agree 55.5

Interpersonal Skills (e.g interacting and communicating with others)

(n = 1,023)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 40.9

Strongly Agree 48.9

Research Skills (e.g. report writing, data analysis)

(n = 1,025)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 40.8

Strongly Agree 42.2

Communication Skills (e.g. clear presentation of ideas in written and verbal forms)

(n = 1,024)

Valid Percent



Somewhat Agree 39.2

Strongly Agree 51.6



92

Please indicate to what extent the following resources have contributed positively to your student experience at TCSPP. If you have not used one of these resources in the past twelve months, indicate "N/A." Applied Professional Practice (APP)

(n = 601)

Valid Percent

Not at all 14.3

Somewhat 36.4

A great deal 49.3

Career Services

(n = 546)

Valid Percent

Not at all 22.5

Somewhat 50.4

A great deal 27.1

Field Experiences (e.g. Internships, Practicums, Service Learning)

(n = 587)

Valid Percent

Not at all 10.2

Somewhat 16.7

A great deal 73.1

Financial Aid

(n = 881)

Valid Percent

Not at all 11.7

Somewhat 30.2

A great deal 58.1

Health and Wellness (e.g. Insurance, Student Gateway)

(n = 494)

Valid Percent

Not at all 37.9

Somewhat 37.9

A great deal 24.3



93

Information Technology (e.g. Canvas, Student Gateway)

(n = 917)

Valid Percent

Not at all 10.3

Somewhat 41.5

A great deal 48.2

Library Resources

(n = 950)

Valid Percent

Not at all 4.3

Somewhat 32.1

A great deal 63.6

National Center for Academic & Dissertation Excellence (NCADE)

(n = 578)

Valid Percent

Not at all 20.9

Somewhat 37.9

A great deal 41.2

Student Accounts (e.g. Payment Plans, Discounts)

(n = 796)

Valid Percent

Not at all 17.3

Somewhat 42.3

A great deal 40.3

Study Abroad

(n = 300)

Valid Percent

Not at all 49.3

Somewhat 19.0

A great deal 31.7



94

ACCESS services (disability)

(n = 227)

Valid Percent

Not at all 65.6

Somewhat 16.7

A great deal 17.6

How satisfied are you with your OVERALL academic experience at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology?

(n = 998)

Valid Percent

Very Dissatisfied 3.3

Dissatisfied 7.5

Neutral 13.3

Satisfied 46.9

Very Satisfied 29.0

Please indicate your overall level of agreement with the following statements using the scale provided. I would recommend TCSPP to friends, family, and colleagues.

(n = 1,009)

Valid Percent


Disagree 7.7

Neutral 16.7

Agree 38.8

Strongly Agree 30.0

I made the right choice by enrolling at TCSPP.

(n = 1,010)

Valid Percent


Disagree 6.0

Neutral 17.1

Agree 38.0

Strongly Agree 34.7



95

My overall experience at TCSPP has met my expectations.

(n = 1,008)

Valid Percent


Disagree 11.7

Neutral 15.8

Agree 38.0

Strongly Agree 28.9

I feel a sense of pride attending TCSPP.

(n = 1,009)

Valid Percent


Disagree 6.7

Neutral 29.4

Agree 33.2

Strongly Agree 26.7

TCSPP has a good reputation within the community.

(n = 1,003)

Valid Percent


Disagree 6.7

Neutral 29.4

Agree 33.2

Strongly Agree 26.7

I feel welcomed by individuals at TCSPP.

(n = 1,006)

Valid Percent


Disagree 3.9

Neutral 17.1

Agree 42.2

Strongly Agree 34.5



96

I feel a sense of belonging at TCSPP.

(n = 1,008)

Valid Percent


Disagree 9.8

Neutral 23.9

Agree 32.5

Strongly Agree 29.1


The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Student ...€¦ · Using the Spring 2015 Census, the...

Documents

Transcript of The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Student ...€¦ · Using the Spring 2015 Census, the...