© 2020 by ACT, Inc. All rights reserved. | R1812
ACT Research & Policy | Issue Brief | March 2020
1
The Impact of Superscoring on the
Distribution of ACT Scores
Ty Cruce, PhD, and Krista Mattern, PhD
With the announcement of superscoring of the ACT
®
beginning in September 2020,
stakeholders have raised questions about the impact of this new scoring method on
the distribution of ACT scores. While not the focus of that particular study, a recent
ACT research report found that, among students in the 2018 ACT-tested graduating
class (N=1,914,814), the mean ACT Composite score was 20.8 when based on the
students’ most recent score and was 21.3 when based on superscoring—resulting in
an increase of half a point.
1
Our own analysis of the 2019 ACT-tested graduating class
(N=1,782,820) shows the same half-point increase when moving from a mean ACT
Composite score based on the students’ most recent score (20.7) to one based on
superscoring (21.2).
Although these results provide a general summary
of the changes that we might anticipate due to
the shift to superscoring, stakeholders may also
have information needs that go beyond changes
in average scores. In particular, many states and
higher education institutions have policies in place
whereby students automatically qualify for college
admission or merit aid if their ACT Composite score
meets a minimum threshold. For purposes such
as these, having a more thorough understanding
of the shift in the distribution of ACT Composite
scores due to superscoring is critically important.
In response to this need, we have created a
publicly-available Tableau dashboard that reports
nationally and for each state the distribution of
students across the full ACT Composite score
scale based on three scoring methods: most recent
score, highest score from a single test attempt, and
ACT Superscore based on the highest subject test
scores across all test attempts.
ACT Superscore Database
The ACT Superscore Database
provides score distributions based
on three scoring methods—most
recent score, highest score from a
single test attempt, and superscore
based on the highest subject test
scores across all test attempts—
and can be accessed from
dataviz
act.org/
.
Similar information is available
for higher education institutions
wanting to review their school’s
ACT-tested enrolled students.
Requests can be submitted using
the form found here.
ACT.org/research
ACT Research & Policy | Issue Brief | March 2020 2
Figure 1 provides a screenshot of this dashboard, showing the counts,
percentages, cumulative counts, and cumulative percentages of students in the
2019 ACT-tested graduating class based on the three scoring methods. Such
information can help stakeholders understand how many more students might
earn scores at or above a specic ACT score given the change to superscoring.
2
There are two important takeaways from this gure. First, at any point in the
score scale, changes in the cumulative share of students who earn at or above
a particular ACT Composite score will be greater when comparing the most
recent scoring method to superscoring than when comparing the highest
scoring method to superscoring. Second, regardless of the comparison made,
dierences across the three scoring methods in the cumulative share of
students
who earn at or above a particular ACT Composite score will always be greater
toward the center of the distribution and smaller toward the tails of the distribution.
As an example to help interpret the information in Figure 1, 170,573 students
(9.6%) earned an ACT Composite score of 30 or higher when based on most
recent score, whereas 206,644 students (11.6%) earned an ACT Composite
score of 30 or higher when based on superscoring. This represents an increase
of 36,071 students, or an additional 2% of the 2019 ACT-tested graduating
class. The increase in the cumulative share of students is less pronounced when
comparing the highest Composite scoring method to the superscoring method.
3
As we see in Figure 1, the cumulative percentage of students earning an ACT
Composite score of 30 or higher increases by a little over 1 percentage point—
from 10.3% to 11.6%—when making this comparison.
In addition to reporting this information in tabular form, we also provide a second
dashboard that contains a means comparison and a visual comparison of the
shift in the distributions from the most recent and highest ACT Composite scores
to the ACT Superscore. Figure 2 provides a screenshot of this dashboard for
the 2019 ACT-tested graduating class, showing histograms for the student count
based on each of the three score methods. This dashboard also provides a visual
representation of the dierence in the student count when shifting from the most
recent and highest scoring methods to superscoring.
ACT Research & Policy | Issue Brief | March 2020 4
Figure 2. Tableau Screenshot of Visual Representation of the Shift in the ACT Score Distributions from Most Recent and Highest
ACT Composite Score to ACT Superscore, Nationally
Note: Clicking on the Figure 2 screenshot will activate a hyperlink to the Tableau dashboard.
ACT Research & Policy | Issue Brief | March 2020 5
Notes
1. Mattern, K., & Radunzel, J. (2019). Does superscoring increase subgroup
dierences? Iowa City, IA: ACT. Retrieved from https://www.act.org/content/
dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1774-superscoring-subgroup-2019-07.pdf
2. This information is based on a high school graduating class that took the ACT
prior to the change to superscoring. Students in this graduating class who
retested took the full ACT. Announcement of the change to superscoring and
the option to retake individual subject tests may inuence students’ behavior
regarding retesting with the ACT, and this may have an impact on how many
students increase their ACT Composite score through the superscoring
method.
3. According to ACT’s internal review of colleges’ score use practices, more
postsecondary institutions use the highest Composite score than the most
recent Composite score.
Ty Cruce, PhD
Ty Cruce is a principal research scientist in Validity and Ecacy Research at ACT.
Krista Mattern, PhD
Krista Mattern is a senior director in Validity and Ecacy Research whose research
focuses on predicting education and workplace success through evaluating the validity
and fairness of cognitive and non-cognitive measures. Also known for work in evaluating
the ecacy of learning products to help improve intended learner outcomes.
