ACT | College and Career Readiness Solutions =============== [Skip to content](http://www.act.org/#content) act.org,actprofile.org,act.org,actstudent.org,act.alertline.com,services.actstudent.org,career4.successfactors.com,engage.act.org,discoveractaspire.org,qc.vantage.com,myworkkeys.act.org,twitter.com,facebook.com,youtube.com,plus.google.com,linkedin.com,preview.act.org,workreadycommunities.org,pearson.com,instagram.com,actaspire.org,run2.careerready101.com,run2.keytrain.com,leadershipblog.act.org,my.act.org [![Image 1: Link to Home Page](http://www.act.org/etc/designs/act/clientlibs/act-base/img/logo-act-blue-300.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en.html)Toggle navigation Menu Menu Open Search Form * [Start Your Journey](http://www.act.org/) * [Plan for College and Career](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [Take the ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) * [School and District Assessment](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html#solutions) * [Career-Ready Solutions](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [Accommodations](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/accommodations.html) * [Students & Parents](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [K-12](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) * [Workforce](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [Higher Ed](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) * [Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) * [Open Search Form](http://www.act.org/) * [MyACT](https://my.act.org/) Search Search site... [Close Search](http://www.act.org/) [Other ACT Services and Products](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) DESIGNED FOR YOUR SUCCESS ========================= The new enhanced ACT is built for you - shorter test, more time per question, and more flexibility to showcase your strengths. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Register in 5 Minutes!](https://my.act.org/) #### The #1 taken college admissions test in nearly half of U.S. states.* Next Test Date: October 18 | Early Deadline: September 12 --------------------------------------------------------- October is one of only three test dates to get your ACT Answer Key! [Learn more.](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/request-a-copy-of-qa.html) [Register in 5 Minutes!](https://my.act.org/) [Get a Reminder](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration.html#reg-reminder) The countdown is on! Join the more than 500,000 students who’ve registered for the ACT since April! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Join Them Today!](https://my.act.org/) Test Your way. more time, less pressure. ---------------------------------------- [![Image 2](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/icon-document.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) Shorter Test, Fewer Questions Think clearly, stay focused throughout, and be done before you know it. [![Image 3](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/icon-clock.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) More Time Per Question Get your best score when you feel less pressure to answer every question quickly. [![Image 4](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/icon-science-optional.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) Optional Science and Writing Choose if you want to show off your strengths with optional science and writing sections. [![Image 5](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/icon-paper-or-online.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) Test on Paper or Computer Boost your confidence and performance by testing the way you are most familiar. Upcoming Test Dates & Deadlines ------------------------------- Over 97% of scores are available within a 2-4 week period after the test date. | Test Date | Score Release Date | Early Reg Deadline | Late Reg Deadline* | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Sep 6, 2025 | Sep 23, 2025 | Aug 1, 2025 | Aug 19, 2025 | | Oct 18, 2025 | Oct 28, 2025 | Sep 12, 2025 | Sep 30, 2025 | | Dec 13, 2025 | Dec 30, 2025 | Nov 7, 2025 | Nov 24, 2025 | | Feb 14, 2026 | Mar 3, 2026 | Jan 9, 2026 | Jan 23, 2026 | | Apr 11, 2026 | Apr 21, 2026 | Mar 6, 2026 | Mar 24, 2026 | | Jun 13, 2026 | Jun 23, 2026 | May 8, 2026 | May 29, 2026 | | Jul 11, 2026 | Jul 21, 2026 | Jun 5, 2026 | Jun 24, 2026 | _*Late fee applies._ [REGISTER NOW](https://my.act.org/) WHAT STUDENTS ARE SAYING ------------------------ I feel like [having more time] significantly helped. When I would do practice tests, I was getting on the edge of the time every single time. This time I had time to review almost every section. Noah Clements Grade 11, North Caldwell, NJ I just kind of wanted to take the science because if I didn't it'd be like the same thing as taking the SAT. I want to go into medicine. Addison Barnes Grade 11, Mansfield, TX When I signed up, I was a little nervous, so when I saw that I had the option, I loved it because I didn't have to be forced to take something that I didn't want to. Brooklyn Dismuke Grade 11, Dallas, TX JOIN MILLIONS OF STUDENTS WHO TRUST THE ACT ------------------------------------------- ### 25,000+ Students have already taken the new enhanced ACT test. * * * ### 1.3M Students took the ACT test last year. * * * ### 35% of ACT test-takers take it more than once to improve scores and scholarship chances. READY TO REGISTER? ------------------ ### Click below to get started today & secure your spot for the upcoming test! [![Image 6](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/pink-cap-icon.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) [The ACT](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) [![Image 7](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/pink-outline-checklist-icon.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration.html) [Registration](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration.html) [![Image 8](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/pink-outline-desk-icon.png/jcr:content/renditions/optimized.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation.html) [Test Prep](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation.html) [![Image 9](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/save-calendar-outline-icon-pink.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-day.html) [Test Day](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-day.html) [![Image 10](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/person-experience-outline-icon-pink.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores.html) [Scores](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores.html) [![Image 11](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/save-money-outline-icon-pink.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/fees/fee-waivers.html) [Fee Waivers](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/fees/fee-waivers.html) [Register Today!](https://my.act.org/) [![Image 12](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/logo-act-reversed.png/jcr:content/renditions/optimized.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en.html) High School, College, and Workplace Success Begin Here ------------------------------------------------------ ACT serves a wide variety of people just like you who are looking for guidance as they navigate their college, career, and workforce journey. [![Image 13](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/2022/d2l-test-2.png/jcr:content/renditions/optimized.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) #### Students and Parents [ACT Enhancements](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) [Taking the ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) [ACT Test Prep](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation.html) [College Planning](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents/college-planning-resources.html) [![Image 14](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/2022/k12-educators.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) #### K-12 Educators [K-12 Solutions](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) [ACT Testing on a School Day](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act-educator.html) [Resources for Educators](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators/administrator-resources.html) [Online Assessment Planner](https://assessmentplanner.act.org/) [![Image 15](http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/construction-safety-workforce.jpg)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) #### Workforce Solutions [K-12 Educators](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-k12-educators.html) [Community College](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-community-college.html) [Adult Education](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-adult-education.html) [Resources](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/resources.html) [![Image 16: Link to Home Page](http://www.act.org/etc/designs/act/clientlibs/act-base/img/logo-act-rev-300.png)](http://www.act.org/) * [Students & Parents](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [K-12 Professionals](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) * [Higher Education](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) * [Workforce](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [International](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/act-international-programs.html) * [About ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/about-act.html) * [Careers](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/careers-at-act.html) * [Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) * [Solutions & Services](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) * [State & Federal Programs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs.html) * [ACT Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) * [Research](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research.html) * [For the Media](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/newsroom.html) * [Sign In](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/sign-in.html) * [Contact](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/contact-act.html) ©2025 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. [Terms of Use](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/terms-of-use.html) * [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/actstudent/) * [Tik Tok](https://www.tiktok.com/@actstudent) * [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ACTStudent/) * [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/theacttest) * [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/act) * [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheACTTest) * [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html)| * [Vendors](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/vendor-resources.html)| * [Report Cheating](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/report-cheating.html)| * [Ethics](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/ethics.html)| * [Accessibility](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/accessibility.html)| × This action will open a new window. Do you want to proceed? [OK](http://www.act.org/)[Cancel](http://www.act.org/) × × #### Welcome to ACT If you are accessing this site from outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or U.S. Territories, please proceed to the non-U.S. version of our website. [Close](javascript:void();)[Go](http://global.act.org/) [Top](http://www.act.org/#) By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. [Privacy Notice](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) Manage Cookies Reject All Accept All Cookies ![Image 17: Company Logo](https://cdn.cookielaw.org/logos/a80098f0-8e5c-4313-8892-cd0f5cae1fb9/736677ea-d743-4e2b-a62d-619b625f3c9f/17dde408-cc21-4c61-abbe-c27aaa02be2e/logo-act-blue-300.png) Your Opt Out Preference Signal is Honored Cookie Preference Center ------------------------ When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) Accept All ### Manage Cookie Preferences #### Strictly Necessary Cookies Always Active These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information. * ##### Functional Cookies Always Active These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly. #### Performance Cookies - [x] Performance Cookies These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance. #### Targeting Cookies - [x] Targeting Cookies These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising. ### Cookie List Clear - [x] checkbox label label Apply Cancel Consent Leg.Interest - [x] checkbox label label - [x] checkbox label label - [x] checkbox label label Confirm My Choices [![Image 18: Powered by Onetrust](https://cdn.cookielaw.org/logos/static/powered_by_logo.svg)](https://www.onetrust.com/products/cookie-consent/) Links/Buttons: - [Skip to content](https://www.act.org/#content) - [](https://www.onetrust.com/products/cookie-consent/) - [Plan for College and Career](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) - [Take the ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) - [School and District Assessment](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html#solutions) - [Career-Ready Solutions](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) - [Accommodations](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/accommodations.html) - [K-12](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) - [Higher Ed](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) - [Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) - [MyACT](https://my.act.org/) - [Other ACT Services and Products](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) - [Learn more.](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores/request-a-copy-of-qa.html) - [Get a Reminder](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration.html#reg-reminder) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgicdafafabbjaehceaefciideebafbbdg", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/icon\u002Ddocument.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-changes/enhancements.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImghdfaejecgjdfeeaajicgdjffagfejehj", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/pink\u002Doutline\u002Dchecklist\u002Dicon.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgegfdbghjabdaedeijgafdcghddfhhedc", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/pink\u002Doutline\u002Ddesk\u002Dicon.png\/jcr:content\/renditions\/optimized.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-preparation.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgffefdicbdcadeaehiefdiaaecebhaegb", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/save\u002Dcalendar\u002Doutline\u002Dicon\u002Dpink.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/test-day.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgfdcffejbecjdejddifbjfgfbgdaggeee", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/person\u002Dexperience\u002Doutline\u002Dicon\u002Dpink.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/scores.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgaccjcjdeeachefgfbaebccgccaidhadj", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/save\u002Dmoney\u002Doutline\u002Dicon\u002Dpink.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/fees/fee-waivers.html) - [College Planning](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents/college-planning-resources.html) - [ACT Testing on a School Day](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act-educator.html) - [Resources for Educators](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators/administrator-resources.html) - [Online Assessment Planner](https://assessmentplanner.act.org/) - [K-12 Educators](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-k12-educators.html) - [Community College](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-community-college.html) - [Adult Education](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/workforce-solutions-adult-education.html) - [Resources](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions/resources.html) - [International](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/act-international-programs.html) - [About ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/about-act.html) - [Careers](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/careers-at-act.html) - [Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) - [State & Federal Programs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs.html) - [Research](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research.html) - [For the Media](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/newsroom.html) - [Sign In](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/sign-in.html) - [Contact](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/contact-act.html) - [Terms of Use](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/terms-of-use.html) - [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/actstudent/) - [Tik Tok](https://www.tiktok.com/@actstudent) - [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ACTStudent/) - [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/theacttest) - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/act) - [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheACTTest) - [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) - [Vendors](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/vendor-resources.html) - [Report Cheating](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/report-cheating.html) - [Ethics](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/ethics.html) - [Accessibility](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/accessibility.html) - [Go](http://global.act.org/) - [Top](https://www.act.org/#) Summary - 2026 Smoky Mountains ACT Summit =============== [Skip to main content](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9#main) * Summary * Cost * Agenda * Location * Terms & Conditions Register Now [Already Registered?](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9#) 2026 Smoky Mountains ACT Summit =============================== January 13, 2026 8:00 AM-3:00 PM ET Viewing in Eastern Time Adjust UT Knoxville Student Union -------------------------- 1502 Cumberland Avenue Knoxville, TN 37996 We are excited to share a professional development opportunity with you! The 2026 Smoky Mountains ACT Summit offers education and workforce leaders the opportunity to exchange ideas, deepen their knowledge, and explore real-world solutions to today’s most pressing problems. ![Image 1: Photo of female in crowd speaking into a microphone](https://images.cvent.com/d91904c6b27c4ab5b4b093d27cbefb2f/pix/3193f3c6c22f4f69a117a8199f242f58!_!18438495239c867e7a34d1f59ceb90ea.jpg?f=webp) Interested in attending the 2026 Smoky Mountains ACT Summit? Register Now [Already registered?](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9#) [View Agenda](https://cvent.me/YMG40q?RefId=Agenda) [Cost Information](https://cvent.me/7veGO1) Attendees will engage in interactive sessions covering a wide range of topics, including: * Best practices using ACT programs to increase education and workforce success * Supporting students in developing essential skills * Using AI in the classroom * K-12, higher education, and workforce partnerships * Parent and community engagement * Effective test preparation strategies ACT Professional Learning Community Discount (PLC) Code: PLC20 By applying the $20 PLC discount code at registration, you confirm that you are already a member or agree to become a member of the ACT Professional Learning Community. [Complete information on PLC membership can be found here](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs/state-organizations.html). See you in... * 138 Days * 7 Hours * 57 Minutes Questions? Reach out! Contact Us Accessibility For questions about accessibility or to request an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), please contact Nick Arnold at 319.337.1919 or [nicholas.arnold@act.org](mailto:nicholas.arnold@act.org) two weeks prior to the event start date. NOTE: ACT _may_ be able to make arrangements without two weeks advance notice. ![Image 2: ACT Logo](https://images.cvent.com/d91904c6b27c4ab5b4b093d27cbefb2f/pix/2b13dbd8b9f4464fb74e96ccd63682ba!_!da0c8c126e703c588b44895580fa1b45.png?f=webp) © 2025 by ACT Education Corp.All rights reserved. 500 ACT Drive, Iowa City, Iowa 52243 Follow us on ------------ * * * * * [Contact Us](https://web.cvent.com/event/nicholas.arnold@act.org) [About ACT Regional Events](http://www.act.org/stateorgs) [Privacy Policy](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) * [Cvent Privacy Policy](https://www.cvent.com/en/privacy-policy) * [ACT Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) Loading ![Image 3](https://bat.bing.com/action/0?ti=17554888&tm=gtm002&Ver=2&mid=35fefcc1-7db4-44d3-a119-2dc87f7db8ea&bo=1&sid=3cb9b26083cc11f0b23ed7f640fd32b1&vid=3cb9ab0083cc11f0a0299fedc84233d6&vids=1&msclkid=N&pi=918639831&lg=en-US&sw=800&sh=600&sc=24&tl=2026%20Smoky%20Mountains%20ACT%20Summit&p=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.cvent.com%2Fevent%2FB3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9&r=<=264&evt=pageLoad&sv=1&cdb=AQAQ&rn=151758) Links/Buttons: - [Skip to main content](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9/summary#main) - [Already Registered?](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9/summary#) - [View Agenda](https://cvent.me/YMG40q?RefId=Agenda) - [Cost Information](https://cvent.me/7veGO1) - [Complete information on PLC membership can be found here](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs/state-organizations.html) - [nicholas.arnold@act.org](mailto:nicholas.arnold@act.org) - [Contact Us](https://web.cvent.com/event/B3D61269-F8E5-447B-A2BB-E104D29EDFC9/nicholas.arnold@act.org) - [About ACT Regional Events](http://www.act.org/stateorgs) - [Privacy Policy](http://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) - [Cvent Privacy Policy](https://www.cvent.com/en/privacy-policy) - [ACT Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) ACT Events =============== [Skip to content](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html#content) act.org,actprofile.org,act.org,actstudent.org,act.alertline.com,services.actstudent.org,career4.successfactors.com,engage.act.org,discoveractaspire.org,qc.vantage.com,myworkkeys.act.org,twitter.com,facebook.com,youtube.com,plus.google.com,linkedin.com,preview.act.org,workreadycommunities.org,pearson.com,instagram.com,actaspire.org,run2.careerready101.com,run2.keytrain.com,leadershipblog.act.org,my.act.org [![Image 1: Link to Home Page](https://www.act.org/etc/designs/act/clientlibs/act-base/img/logo-act-blue-300.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en.html)Toggle navigation Menu Menu Open Search Form * [Start Your Journey](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) * [Plan for College and Career](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [Take the ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) * [School and District Assessment](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html#solutions) * [Career-Ready Solutions](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [Accommodations](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/accommodations.html) * [Students & Parents](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [K-12](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) * [Workforce](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [Higher Ed](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) * [Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) * [Open Search Form](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) * [MyACT](https://my.act.org/) Search Search site... [Close Search](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) [Other ACT Services and Products](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) ACT Conferences, Workshops, and Webinars ======================================== Upcoming Events --------------- ### ACT Summit Where Policy and Practice Meet Purpose **For Workforce, K-12, and Higher Education Leaders** Join us at the 2026 ACT Summit, where leaders from K-12, higher education, and workforce sectors come together to solve today's most pressing challenges, sharing actionable insights and innovative strategies to shape the future of education and the workforce. [Learn More About ACT Summit](https://site.act.org/act-summit) [![Image 2](https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/workforce-summit-networking.png)](https://site.act.org/act-summit) ### Upcoming Events for K-12 Professionals #### College and Career Readiness Workshops Attend a College and Career Readiness Workshop (CCRW) to learn more about the programs and services that ACT offers to help you ensure your students are on the right path. [Register for CCRWs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events/college-and-career-readiness-workshops.html) ### Upcoming Events for States and Institutions #### Arizona ACT Conference **Tempe Tuesday, December 9**Arizona State University [Register Now](https://cvent.me/NzrxmB) #### Illinois Summit **Champaign Wednesday, December 10, 2025**I Hotel and Conference Center [Register Now](https://web.cvent.com/event/2f1ca62d-f485-4739-9741-94e1a89b0882/summary?__hstc=223424452.6d7abaa21aaacb3489889442b0d206f5.1756357428691.1756357428691.1756357428691.1&__hssc=223424452.1.1756357428691&__hsfp=1168260754) #### Illinois Summit **Chicago Friday, December 12, 2025**University of Illinois at Chicago [Register Now](https://web.cvent.com/event/168e15c8-a939-4b94-b481-84e7a72ecaa2/summary?__hstc=223424452.6d7abaa21aaacb3489889442b0d206f5.1756357428691.1756357428691.1756357428691.1&__hssc=223424452.1.1756357428691&__hsfp=1168260754) #### Southeast ACT Summit **Tuscaloosa January 22-23, 2026**Bryant Conference Center [Register Now](https://cvent.me/VAnGPM) [View More ACT Regional Learning Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs/professional-learning-community.html#calendar) On-Demand Events ---------------- ### On-Demand Events for Students and Parents ### My Journey Free College and Career Planning Virtual Events Attend a live, virtual event or view recorded sessions to gain insights from recent graduates and admissions experts about preparing for college and career. [Learn More About My Journey](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents/college-and-career-planning-event-sessions.html) [![Image 3](https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/Images/icon-student-parent-1-w-circle.png/jcr:content/renditions/optimized.png)](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events/act-summit.html) ### On-Demand Events for K-12 Professionals #### SEL Webinar Join Mosaic by ACT for an insightful presentation on trauma-informed practices and discover strategies to create a safe and positive learning environment for your students. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/from-adversity-to-achievement-webinar) #### College and Career Readiness Day Webinar Explore best practices for building a College and Career Readiness Day at your school. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/act-ccrday-2025-webinar) #### ACT College and Career Readiness Outlook 2024-25 This on-demand event explores current issues shaping college and career readiness. Hear from school and district leaders about their successes. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/college-and-career-readiness-outlook) #### K-12 Webinar Series: ACT Enhancements Get a detailed overview of the ACT enhancements and gain valuable insights to guide your school or district through these updates with confidence. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/k12-act-enhancements-webinar-series) On-Demand Events for Workforce Professionals -------------------------------------------- #### Fostering Inclusion: What Makes It Challenging and How Can We Do It? Join ACT’s Distinguished Lecture Series as we welcome Dr. Ferdman, a principal and founder of Ferdman Consulting and a globally recognized expert in inclusive leadership and organization development. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/act-lecture-series-may-2025) #### Unlocking the Potential of Rural STARs Join our presenters for an insightful webinar about the untapped potential of rural STARs and their role in driving growth and innovation in rural communities. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/unlocking-the-potential-of-rural-stars) #### Harness the Power of ACT WorkKeys for Stronger CTE Programs Learn how you can partner with ACT to harness ACT WorkKeys Assessment data to promote a stronger workforce ecosystem. [Watch On-Demand](https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/4304711/43EA91AC37E5EC00095FA8F5F4AF0122) #### Mastering Credential Selection: Ensuring Quality and Transparency for Your Learners Explore critical factors such as accreditation, industry recognition, and the credentialing processes to help identify and evaluate credentials that uphold the highest standards of quality. [Watch On-Demand](https://site.act.org/mastering-credential-selection-ensuring-quality-and-transparency-for-your-learners) #### Workforce Holistic Framework Considering the whole learner - better preparation for success. [Watch On-Demand](https://youtu.be/xtcPAdEcn1w) [![Image 4: Link to Home Page](https://www.act.org/etc/designs/act/clientlibs/act-base/img/logo-act-rev-300.png)](https://www.act.org/) * [Students & Parents](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) * [K-12 Professionals](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) * [Higher Education](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) * [Workforce](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) * [International](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/act-international-programs.html) * [About ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/about-act.html) * [Careers](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/careers-at-act.html) * [Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) * [Solutions & Services](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) * [State & Federal Programs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs.html) * [ACT Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) * [Research](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research.html) * [For the Media](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/newsroom.html) * [Sign In](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/sign-in.html) * [Contact](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/contact-act.html) ©2025 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. [Terms of Use](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/terms-of-use.html) * [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/actstudent/) * [Tik Tok](https://www.tiktok.com/@actstudent) * [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ACTStudent/) * [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/theacttest) * [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/act) * [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheACTTest) * [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html)| * [Vendors](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/vendor-resources.html)| * [Report Cheating](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/report-cheating.html)| * [Ethics](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/ethics.html)| * [Accessibility](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/accessibility.html)| × This action will open a new window. Do you want to proceed? [OK](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html)[Cancel](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) × × #### Welcome to ACT If you are accessing this site from outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or U.S. Territories, please proceed to the non-U.S. version of our website. [Close](javascript:void();)[Go](http://global.act.org/) [Top](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html#) By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. [Privacy Notice](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) Manage Cookies Reject All Accept All Cookies ![Image 5: Company Logo](https://cdn.cookielaw.org/logos/a80098f0-8e5c-4313-8892-cd0f5cae1fb9/736677ea-d743-4e2b-a62d-619b625f3c9f/17dde408-cc21-4c61-abbe-c27aaa02be2e/logo-act-blue-300.png) Your Opt Out Preference Signal is Honored Cookie Preference Center ------------------------ When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) Accept All ### Manage Cookie Preferences #### Strictly Necessary Cookies Always Active These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information. * ##### Functional Cookies Always Active These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly. #### Performance Cookies - [x] Performance Cookies These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance. #### Targeting Cookies - [x] Targeting Cookies These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising. ### Cookie List Clear - [x] checkbox label label Apply Cancel Consent Leg.Interest - [x] checkbox label label - [x] checkbox label label - [x] checkbox label label Confirm My Choices [![Image 6: Powered by Onetrust](https://cdn.cookielaw.org/logos/static/powered_by_logo.svg)](https://www.onetrust.com/products/cookie-consent/) Links/Buttons: - [Skip to content](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html#content) - [](https://www.onetrust.com/products/cookie-consent/) - [Plan for College and Career](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents.html) - [Take the ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html) - [School and District Assessment](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html#solutions) - [Career-Ready Solutions](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/workforce-solutions.html) - [Accommodations](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act/registration/accommodations.html) - [K-12](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/k12-educators-and-administrators.html) - [Higher Ed](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/postsecondary-professionals.html) - [Blogs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-blogs.html) - [MyACT](https://my.act.org/) - [Other ACT Services and Products](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services.html) - [Learn More About ACT Summit](https://site.act.org/act-summit) - [Register for CCRWs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events/college-and-career-readiness-workshops.html) - [Register Now](https://cvent.me/VAnGPM) - [View More ACT Regional Learning Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs/professional-learning-community.html#calendar) - [Learn More About My Journey](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/students-and-parents/college-and-career-planning-event-sessions.html) - [$(document).ready(function(){ ACT_AdaptiveImage("actImgdbiebcffgaedeejjaefjgjbgadiifced", false, "\/content\/dam\/act\/unsecured\/Images\/icon\u002Dstudent\u002Dparent\u002D1\u002Dw\u002Dcircle.png\/jcr:content\/renditions\/optimized.png"); });](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events/act-summit.html) - [Watch On-Demand](https://youtu.be/xtcPAdEcn1w) - [International](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/act-international-programs.html) - [About ACT](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/about-act.html) - [Careers](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/careers-at-act.html) - [Events](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html) - [State & Federal Programs](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/state-and-federal-programs.html) - [Research](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/research.html) - [For the Media](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/newsroom.html) - [Sign In](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/sign-in.html) - [Contact](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/contact-act.html) - [Terms of Use](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/terms-of-use.html) - [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/actstudent/) - [Tik Tok](https://www.tiktok.com/@actstudent) - [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ACTStudent/) - [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/theacttest) - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/act) - [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheACTTest) - [Privacy Policy](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/privacy-policy.html) - [Vendors](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/vendor-resources.html) - [Report Cheating](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/report-cheating.html) - [Ethics](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/ethics.html) - [Accessibility](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/accessibility.html) - [Go](http://global.act.org/) - [Top](https://www.act.org/content/act/en/act-events.html#) Published Time: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:00:43 GMT Mosaic™ by ACT ®: Social Emotional Learning Assessment Technical Manual # October 2024 Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual ii # Table of Contents > Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 > Chapter 2 Mosaic Background and Skills Assessed ............................................................................ 2 > 2.1 What Are Social Emotional Skills? ......................................................................................... 2 > 2.2 What Is School Climate? ....................................................................................................... 3 > 2.3 Assessment Framework: Five Factor Model of Personality ...................................................... 3 > 2.4 The Five Factor Model as an Organizing Framework for Social Emotional Skills ........................ 4 > 2.5 Five Factor Model Traits’ Associations with Academic Outcomes ............................................. 5 > 2.6 Five Factor Model Traits’ Development over the Lifespan ........................................................ 5 > 2.7 Mosaic Skills and their Alignment to the Five Factor Model ...................................................... 7 > 2.8 Mosaic Skills and their Alignment to the ACT Holistic Framework ® ........................................... 8 > 2.9 Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 8 > Chapter 3 Multi-Trait Multi-Method Approach and Scoring ................................................................... 9 > 3.1 Likert Items ......................................................................................................................... 9 > 3.2 Forced-Choice Items .......................................................................................................... 10 > 3.3 Situational Judgment Tests ................................................................................................. 10 > 3.4 Aggregate Scores .............................................................................................................. 11 > 3.5 Percentiles ........................................................................................................................ 12 > 3.6 Categorical Scores ............................................................................................................. 12 > 3.7 Mosaic Readiness Index ..................................................................................................... 12 > 3.8 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Core Competency Composite Scores ...................................................................................................................... 14 > 3.9 Interpreting Your Students’ Scores ...................................................................................... 14 > Chapter 4 Item Pool ....................................................................................................................... 16 > 4.1 Initial Item Development ..................................................................................................... 16 > 4.2 Final Item Set .................................................................................................................... 16 > Chapter 5 Reliability and Validity Evidence ....................................................................................... 17 > 5.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 17 > 5.2 Method: Middle School Assessment .................................................................................... 18 > 5.3 Results ............................................................................................................................. 18 > 5.4 Norms ............................................................................................................................... 27 > 5.5 High School Assessment .................................................................................................... 27 > 5.6 Method ............................................................................................................................. 27 > 5.7 Results ............................................................................................................................. 28 > 5.8 Norms ............................................................................................................................... 37 > References ................................................................................................................................... 38 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual iii > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # List of Tables Table 2.1. Meta-analytic Correlations Between the Big Five and Cognitive Ability and Grade Point Average (Poropat, 2009) .......................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. 2. Alignment of Mosaic Skills to the Five Factor Model . .............................................................. 7 Table 2. 3. Alignment of Mosaic Skills to ACT’s Holistic Framework ........................................................ 8 Table 3.1. Alignment of Assessment Skills to the CASEL Competencies .............................................. 14 Table 5.1. Middle School Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach’s Alpha) ..................... 18 Table 5.2. Middle School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 5.3. Middle School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and GPA ................................................................................................................................. 21 Table 5.4. Middle School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Discipline ..................................................................................................... 24 Table 5.5. Middle School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 25 Table 5.6. Middle School Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Status Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................ 26 Table 5.7. Middle School Race/Ethnicity Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................................ 27 Table 5.8. High School Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach’s Alpha) ......................... 28 Table 5.9. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 5.10. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and GPA ................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 5.11. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Absenteeism ................................................................................................................... 31 Table 5.12. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Discipline ......................................................................................................................... 33 Table 5.13. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and the Big Five Factors ......... 34 Table 5.14. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and Outcome Variables ........... 34 Table 5.15. High School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills, School Climate Dimensions, and ACT Aspire ...................................................................................................................... 35 Table 5.16. High School Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Status Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................ 36 Table 5.17. High School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills, School Climate Dimensions, and ACT Aspire ...................................................................................................................... 36 Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual iv > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # List of Figures Figure 2.1. Meta-Analytic Evidence Showing Personality Change over the Lifespan .............................. 6 Figure 3.1. Example Likert Item ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3.2. Example Forced-Choice Triad .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 3.3. Example Situational Judgment Test Items ........................................................................... 11 Figure 3.4. Prediction Framework for the Development of the Mosaic Readiness Index ....................... 13 Figure 5.1. Middle School Average Self-Reported GPA by Quartiles of Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ................................................................................................. 22 Figure 5.2. High School Average Self-Reported GPA by Quartiles of Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 30 Figure 5.3. High School Associations between Social Emotional Skills and Absenteeism .................... 32 Figure 5.4. High School Associations between Climate Dimensions and Absenteeism ........................ 32 Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 1 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # Chapter 1 Introduction Mosaic™ by ACT ®: Social Emotional Learning Assessment (hereafter referred to as “the assessment” or “Mosaic”) is a comprehensive assessment system designed to measure five social emotional skills and two dimensions of school climate. There are two versions: a middle school form and a high school form. The online assessment provides students, parents, teachers, and schools with a holistic picture of students’ strengths and areas for improvement and their perception of school safety and quality of relationships with school personnel. The assessment system includes student- and school-level reports that provide feedback on each skill. Mosaic also has a curriculum component designed to help students develop their social emotional skills. The assessment can be used in conjunction with this curriculum as part of a comprehensive set of social emotional learning tools. This technical manual details the empirical basis for the assessment framework, the constructs assessed, the various item types used, and the procedure used to incorporate the item types into a unified score (for each of the five skill areas). In addition, evidence of reliability and validity is provided, as is normative data. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 2 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # Chapter 2 Mosaic Background and Skills Assessed # 2.1 What Are Social Emotional Skills? There is growing consensus in the realm of public policy and in research in education, psychology, and economics that a number of factors outside of cognitive ability may be nearly or just as important for educational and workplace success (Roberts et al., 2007). A few examples of these factors include working hard, getting along with others, and persevering through challenges. Given that most of these factors often demonstrate low zero-order correlations with cognitive ability, they are often referred to as noncognitive factors (see Kyllonen et al., 2014, for a review). Several alternative terms exist, including character strengths, social emotional skills, personal skills, personal qualities, and psychosocial skills (Kyllonen et al., 2014). In the interest of clarity, we will use the term social emotional skills, as this term resonates clearly with educators and is common in policy settings. Social emotional skills can be defined as: “individual capacities that (a) are manifested in consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, (b) can be developed through formal and informal learning experiences, and (c) influence important socioeconomic outcomes throughout the individual’s life” (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015, p. 34). Educators nearly universally believe in the value of social emotional skills, and this belief is reflected in their presence in K −12 (e.g., Stemler & Bebell, 2012) and university mission statements (e.g., Oswald et al., 2004). Policymakers have also recognized the value of social emotional skills. The most recent reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), provides states and districts with increased flexibility on the use of federal funds and accountability measures, both of which can be used to support the development of social emotional skills in schools (Grant et al., 2017). This growing consensus on the value of social emotional skills is supported by decades of research. To echo the OECD definition, social emotional skills predict a variety of important outcomes. These outcomes include, but are not limited to: • academic performance such as grades (Poropat, 2009) • academic retention (Robbins et al., 2004) • behavioral problems (Ge & Conger, 1999) • happiness (Diener & Lucas, 1999) • health (Bogg & Roberts, 2004) and longevity (Roberts et al., 2007) • job performance (Barrick et al., 2001) • job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, et al., 2002) • marital satisfaction (Watson et al., 2000) • peer relationships (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002) Furthermore, in line with the OECD definition, there is evidence that social emotional skills change over time (Roberts et al., 2006) and may be improved through school-based programs (e.g., Durlak et al., 2011). This is discussed in more detail below. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 3 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 2.2 What Is School Climate? In addition to measuring individual differences in students’ skills, it is important to measure students’ perception of the larger context within which they are receiving their education. One approach to this is to assess student perceptions of school climate. School climate can include several factors, such as emotional and physical safety, connectedness, respect, engagement, and challenge (Berg et al., 2017). A review of 206 papers found that school climate tends to focus on five dimensions: safety, relationships, teaching and learning, institutional environment, and the school improvement process (Thapa et al., 2013). Mosaic assesses two dimensions: Relationships with School Personnel and School Safety. School climate is related to a number of outcomes in schools. To name a few, positive school climate is related to higher student self-esteem (Hoge et al., 1990), better psychological well-being (Ruus et al., 2007), decreased absenteeism (e.g., ACT, 2016), and lower rates of student suspension (e.g., Lee et al., 2011). # 2.3 Assessment Framework: Five Factor Model of Personality 2.3.1 Five Factor Model Overview The assessment uses the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; Digman, 1990) as its organizing framework. The FFM was chosen because it is an evidence-based framework that helps K −12 policymakers and educators make sense of the plethora of social emotional skill labels that are used across the field. It effectively organizes the many skills that are critical for student success. In addition, there is a large body of psychological research conducted in the past few decades supporting the framework and establishing the many critical education and life outcomes associated with the five personality factors. The origins of the FFM are discussed below. Guided by the lexical hypothesis, which assumes that important individual differences will become encoded into language as single terms (Goldberg, 1993), Allport and Odbert (1936) searched Webster’s 1925 New International Dictionary for English words describing human characteristics. In total, roughly 18,000 English words were selected, with 4,500 being classified as descriptions of stable personal traits. Cattell (1943) applied factor analytic procedures to reduce the massive list of traits by analyzing the underlying patterns among them. Subsequent efforts to reduce the massive list resulted in five replicable factors (Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). Based on the item content of each factor, they are most commonly labeled extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability (often referred to by its opposite pole, neuroticism), and openness to experience; these are often referred to as the Big Five (see de Raad & Mlačić, 2015, for a complete history). Extraversion describes a person’s likelihood to engage in social interaction, be active and assertive, and experience positive emotionality. Highly extraverted people tend to enjoy leadership positions, feel comfortable expressing unpopular opinions, and express positive emotions. Agreeableness is associated with a prosocial and communal orientation towards others. A very agreeable person can be described as friendly, helpful, and empathic. Conscientiousness primarily describes the tendency to control impulses in an effort to achieve one’s goals. A highly conscientious individual can be described as organized, diligent, and rule following. Emotional stability describes a person’s capability to cope with stressful situations and Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 4 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. emotions. Emotionally stable individuals are able to successfully cope with stressful situations and do not experience negative emotions, such as depression, stress, or anxiety, to an overwhelming degree. Openness to experience is somewhat related to cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997) and can best be described as a person’s interest in and acceptance of unfamiliar cultures, ideas, values, artistic endeavors, and even feelings. Highly open individuals have original, creative, and complex thoughts. Full descriptions and behavioral examples of the Big Five are offered by John et al. (2008). Although the Big Five were first discovered in the English language, studies in other languages and cultures, either involving the full psycholexical approach (for an overview see de Raad, 2000) or applying translations of established FFM inventories, have resulted in the same five factors (see, e.g., McCrae et al., 2005; Schmitt et al., 2007). As one example, McCrae and colleagues (2005) documented the replication of the FFM in nearly 50 cultures on six continents. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the FFM’s universality in the vast majority of countries, cultures, and languages around the world. In addition to its empirical support, the popularity of the FFM has grown because it optimizes bandwidth and fidelity (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965). That is, it allows for the summary of a large amount of information while simultaneously allowing for some nuanced individual difference description (Soto & John, 2014). # 2.4 The Five Factor Model as an Organizing Framework for Social Emotional Skills Given that the Big Five are broad and multifaceted, this model can be used to integrate the plethora of social emotional skill terms discussed in the literature or assessed in practice. The Big Five can be considered as something of a “Rosetta Stone” for understanding social emotional skills (Martin et al., 2019). The Rosetta Stone allowed archaeologists to understand how languages related to one another and how words in different languages had the same underlying meaning. Using the Big Five, we can take constructs expressed as time management in one framework and grit in another and understand their connectedness as facets of conscientiousness. The field of social emotional learning is plagued by the jangle fallacy, meaning various terms are used to describe the same construct. It has been argued that most or all social emotional skills can likely be mapped to the Big Five (Abrahams et al. 2019; Kyllonen et al., 2014; Soto et al., 2021). There is recent empirical work highlighting associations between social emotional skills and the Big Five. For example, factor analyses of social emotional skill measures uncover five factors that closely align with the Big Five (Primi et al., 2016). Likewise, joint factor analyses of social emotional skill measures and Big Five measures lead to a five-factor solution that corresponds to the Big Five (Walton, Murano, et al., 2021). In a separate study, Walton and colleagues gathered subject matter expert ratings of the degree of overlap between Big Five definitions and common social emotional skill labels. With a very high level of agreement, experts from the fields of personality psychology and social emotional learning deem there to be a significant degree of overlap between the two. Big Five-based social emotional skill measures are being developed and used in research (Soto et al., 2022) and large-scale international studies (Kankaraš & Suarez-Alvarez, 2019). Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 5 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 2.5 Five Factor Model Traits’ Associations with Academic Outcomes There is a vast body of psychological research linking the Big Five with many critical outcomes, including those in the academic domain. Table 2.1 provides a summary of meta-analytic data on the Big Five-academic performance link compiled with an accumulated sample size of over 70,000 students (Poropat, 2009). Specifically, it displays the correlations between the Big Five and grade point average (GPA) and the correlation between cognitive ability and GPA. The meta-analytic evidence is compelling; these traits are key for academic success. During the primary school years, cognitive ability’s impact on academic performance exceeds that of any Big Five trait, but by secondary education, conscientiousness is nearly as important for academic performance as cognitive ability. A more recent meta-analysis (Mammadov, 2021) synthesizing studies with an accumulated sample size of over 400,000 students confirms Poropat’s conclusions, reaffirming the role of personality factors in explaining academic performance even when controlling for cognitive ability. However, personality receives less attention in large-scale assessments with policy impact. Moreover, little attention is paid to how these types of skills might be enhanced during a student’s school career via formal instruction and universal or targeted interventions. Table 2.1. Meta-analytic Correlations Between the Big Five and Cognitive Ability and Grade Point Average (Poropat, 2009) > Big Five or Cognitive Factor > Education Level > Primary Secondary Tertiary > Conscientiousness .28 .21 .23 > Agreeableness .30 .05 .06 > Emotional Stability .20 .01 −.01 > Openness to Experience .24 .12 .07 > Extraversion .18 −.03 −.01 > Cognitive Ability .58 .24 .23 # 2.6 Five Factor Model Traits’ Development over the Lifespan The last point made in the preceding section is particularly pertinent. The fact that there is not tremendous effort made to enhance students’ social emotional skills is likely due to the long-standing notion that personality is “set like plaster” (Costa & McCrae, 1994; James, 1981). That is, until recently, many held the belief that personality traits or social emotional skills are immutable, particularly as one ages. People’s tendency to hold on to this view may stem from the fact that there is some trait consistency over time. For example, Roberts and DelVecchio (2000) examined 152 longitudinal studies to show that the rank-order consistency of personality was fairly moderate with estimated test-retest correlations of .31 in early childhood (0–2.9 years) and generally increased over time, reaching .74 in the 50–59 decade when consistency estimates plateau. This level of consistency has been misinterpreted as indicating that personality does not change over time. However, over time, individuals can maintain their relative standing within a group while the entire group can shift a nontrivial degree. That is, high rank-order consistency does not imply that there is no mean-level change. In their meta-analysis of mean-level personality change, Roberts et al. (2006) found that individuals become more socially dominant (a facet of extraversion), conscientious, agreeable, and emotionally stable Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 6 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. throughout the lifespan, particularly in adolescence and early adulthood, and the effects were not slight; change over the lifespan reached a full standard deviation (see Figure 2.1). Figure 2.1. Meta-Analytic Evidence Showing Personality Change over the Lifespan Note: Roberts et al. (2006) examined mean-level change of two components of extraversion with different developmental patterns, namely social dominance and social vitality. Here we present the findings for social dominance. Research in this field has led to the conclusion that cognitive ability may not be changed easily (Kyllonen et al., 2008), but personality traits can be, and in fairly brief and sometimes innocuous ways (Dweck, 2012). Roberts and colleagues (2017) carried out a meta-analysis showing that interventions (primarily clinical interventions) have the capacity to alter personality traits to a significant degree even when the intervention has a duration of just eight weeks. Outside the realm of clinical interventions, research suggests that personality trait change can occur as the result of something fairly simple—specifically, completing “challenges” (Hudson et al., 2019). The challenges Hudson and colleagues used were specific, concrete actions that were small and reasonable for someone to complete, such as: “ask a friend to go for coffee” or “read a news story about a foreign country.” Completing two extraversion challenges per week, for example, resulted in an average increase of .17 standard deviations over the course of a single semester. Another meta-analysis sheds light on the effectiveness of social emotional learning interventions. Summarizing the results of over 75 studies, including studies of afterschool programs where social emotional skills are inculcated, Durlak and colleagues (2010) noted that > 0 > 0.2 > 0.4 > 0.6 > 0.8 > 1 > 1.2 > 10 to 18 18 to 22 22 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70+ > Cumulative Effect Size > Age Range (Years) > Conscientiousness Agreeableness > Emotional Stability Openness > Extraversion (Social Dominance) Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 7 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. these informal learning programs had an overall positive and statistically significant impact on participants. These changes did not occur in all domains, but rather in three main areas: feelings and attitudes, indicators of behavioral adjustment, and school performance. In particular, there were significant increases in youths’ self- perceptions, bonding to school, positive social behaviors, school grades, and achievement test scores. There were also significant reductions in problem-related behaviors. In addition, certain programs that used a protocol centered around sequenced, active, focused, and explicit (i.e., SAFE) programming were associated with practical gains in participants’ test scores of 12 percentile points (compared to control groups’ gains), a result that is similar to or better than those obtained by many other evidence-based interventions for school-aged populations. Durlak et al. (2010) concluded that current findings for afterschool programs “merit support and recognition as an important community setting for promoting youths’ personal and social well-being and adjustment” (p. 302), a finding which has been reported in several meta-analyses (Mahoney et al., 2018). Moreover, it should be noted that the economic benefits of investing in social emotional learning programs outweigh the costs 11:1; that is, for every $1 spent on such programs, there will be an $11 gain (Belfield et al., 2015). This body of research supports the potential for social emotional learning interventions delivered in educational contexts. Although the effectiveness of social emotional learning programs was once dubious, there now appears to be a solid evidentiary base demonstrating that they are not only plausible but are also credible through secondary and even postsecondary education. Given the high valuation of social emotional skills by educators, the effectiveness of high quality social emotional learning programs, and the relative cost effectiveness of such programs, we would argue that social emotional learning should play a more pivotal role in educational policy and practice than previously realized. # 2.7 Mosaic Skills and their Alignment to the Five Factor Model Mosaic measures five social emotional skills: Sustaining Effort, Getting Along with Others, Maintaining Composure, Keeping an Open Mind, and Social Connection (defined in Table 2.2). These skills can be aligned with FFM constructs on a one-to-one basis (see Table 2.2). Table 2.2. Alignment of Mosaic Skills to the Five Factor Model > Mosaic Skill > Skill Definition > The extent to which a student’s actions demonstrate… > Big Five Factor > Sustaining Effort Persistence, goal striving, reliability, dependability, and attention to detail at school Conscientiousness > Getting Along with Others > Collaboration, empathy, helpfulness, trust, and trustworthiness Agreeableness > Maintaining Composure Stress management, emotional regulation, a positive response to setbacks, and poise Emotional Stability > Keeping an Open Mind Creativity, inquisitiveness, flexibility, open-mindedness, and embracing diversity > Openness to Experience > Social Connection Assertiveness, influence, optimism, and enthusiasm Extraversion Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 8 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. This alignment was conducted rationally by comparing the assessment skills’ and the FFM factors’ definitions. Moreover, this alignment is supported by research demonstrating significant correlations between the assessment skills and the FFM factors. Some examples include: • Grit (related to Sustaining Effort) is correlated with conscientiousness (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) • Interpersonal conflict (related to Getting Along with Others) is correlated with agreeableness (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001) • Coping (related to Maintaining Composure) is correlated with emotional stability (MacCann et al., 2012) • Curiosity (related to Keeping an Open Mind) is correlated with openness to experience (Komarraju et al., 2009) • Social Connection is correlated with extraversion (Judge, Bono, et al., 2002) # 2.8 Mosaic Skills and their Alignment to the ACT Holistic Framework ® The constructs assessed by the assessment can be aligned with the ACT Holistic Framework ®(Camara et al., 2015) domains on a one-to-one basis. This alignment is provided in Table 2.3. Note that the Holistic Framework includes a sixth behavioral skill, acting honestly, that is not included in the Mosaic assessment. Table 2.3. Alignment of Mosaic Skills to ACT’s Holistic Framework > Mosaic Skill Holistic Framework Behavioral Skill > Sustaining Effort Sustaining Effort > Getting Along with Others Getting Along with Others > Maintaining Composure Maintaining Composure > Keeping an Open Mind Keeping an Open Mind > Social Connection Socializing with Others # 2.9 Climate Dimensions The assessment measures the Relationships with School Personnel and School Safety dimensions of school climate. The relationships dimension focuses mainly on student-teacher relationships. These relationships tend to be related to frequency of behavioral problems (Gregory & Cornell, 2009) and engagement in the classroom (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), with more positive climate being associated with fewer behavioral problems and more classroom engagement. Feelings of safety at school have been shown to promote learning (Devine & Cohen, 2007), whereas feeling unsafe at school is related to higher levels of absenteeism and lower levels of academic achievement (ACT, 2016). Importantly, these dimensions are also related to social emotional skills, with one study finding that relationships and safety relate to student motivation, self-regulation, and social engagement (Allen et al., 2019). Positive school climate and positive social emotional skills have a bidirectional relationship, with the one supporting the other (Osher & Berg, 2017). Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 9 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # Chapter 3 Multi-Trait Multi-Method Approach and Scoring Mosaic measures the five social emotional skills with three methods: Likert items, forced-choice items, and situational judgment tests (SJT; school climate is measured with Likert items only). Every measurement method is subject to its own biases or weaknesses, and the assessment employs multiple methods to minimize the effects of these biases or weaknesses. This is known as a multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) design. According to Kenny and Kashy (1992), “The underlying view of measurement in the MTMM analysis is that to measure a theoretical construct, different measures, each with its own bias, are selected. Bias that is due to method effects is reduced through a triangulation process” (p. 170). The benefit of the MTMM design is intuitive. For example, while Likert items might be easily faked (see below), SJTs might be somewhat more difficult to fake but might have problems of their own, such as some students having difficulty mentally projecting themselves into hypothetical situations. If only one of these methods is employed in an assessment system, then the bias associated with that method can seriously compromise the assessment’s validity. However, the use of multiple methods minimizes this problem. Each assessment method is briefly described below. # 3.1 Likert Items Likert items have been used in social emotional learning research and practice for decades and are known to allow one to efficiently gather a lot of information in a brief period of time. Individuals are asked to indicate their level of agreement with a number of statements (e.g., “I work hard at school”; see Figure 3.1 for an example). This type of assessment is preferred in environments when there are no stakes for the self-assessor and faking is not expected (Lipnevich et al., 2013). However, respondents may have various motives for faking their responses, such as to avoid having to attend training programs or to appear more attractive to a prospective school admissions officer, university system, or employer (e.g., Zickar et al., 2004). Furthermore, Likert items might be particularly susceptible to reference effects. That is, often people answer such items by asking the question, “compared to whom?” As a consequence, it could be the case that students from very high-achieving schools, for example, might rate themselves lower on their social emotional skills than students from low-achieving schools simply because they are using a different reference group and not because they are truly lower on these skills. This is often called the Big-Fish Little-Pond Effect (Marsh & Hau, 2003). Figure 3.1. Example Likert Item Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 10 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 3.2 Forced-Choice Items In forced-choice (FC) items, statements (or sometimes adjectives) are grouped in blocks, and respondents are instructed to make selections within each block regarding which statements describe him or her best. There are several variations of FC methodology (Hontangas et al., 2015). One variation is the number of items included per block. For example, in pair comparisons, the respondent must choose between two items (e.g., Which is more like you: “I enjoy leading class discussions” or “I work hard in school to achieve my goals”?). Often, three or four items appear per block. FC inventories can also vary according to instructions given to the respondents; they may be asked to either fully or partially rank order the items from “least like me” to “most like me,” or they may be asked to select just one item that is characteristic of them. Finally, there can be either multidimensional or unidimensional forced-choice assessments. In a unidimensional FC block, all statements measure the same latent construct (e.g., “I prefer to work in a group” vs. “I prefer to work alone”). In multidimensional FC assessments, respondents are presented with two or more items, each of which is an indicator of a different latent trait. Any permutation of these three assessment characteristics can be selected based on one’s goals and targeted population characteristics. An example of a partially ranked multidimensional FC triad is presented in Figure 3.2. Respondents are instructed to select the statement that is “most like me” and the one that is “least like me.” There is compelling evidence to suggest that FC items cannot be faked as easily as Likert items (Christiansen et al., 2005; Jackson et al., 2000; Walton, Radunzel, et al., 2021). There is also some evidence that they have stronger relationships with performance outcomes (Drasgow et al., 2012). Furthermore, given that no scales are used in these items, FC tests eliminate scale response effects. Reference bias should also be minimized with FC tests because respondents conduct an internal (self vs. self) rather than an external (self vs. other) comparison when responding to the items. Figure 3.2. Example Forced -Choice Triad # 3.3 Situational Judgment Tests An SJT is one in which participants are asked how best to, or how they might typically, deal with some situation (see Figure 3.3 for an example). Situations can be described in writing or can be audio/videotaped, and response types can include multiple choice, constructed response, and ratings (McDaniel et al., 2001). The methodology has been used to assess many relevant attributes of individuals, including leadership, teamwork, and conscientiousness (Kyllonen & Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 11 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Lee, 2005; MacCann & Roberts, 2008; Oswald et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009). SJTs have been shown to predict many criteria, such as academic success (Lievens & Sackett, 2012; Oswald et al., 2004) and managerial performance (Howard & Choi, 2000). Figure 3.3. Example Situational Judgment Test Items SJTs have several additional advantages over traditional Likert scales. First, SJTs may be developed to reflect both general and more subtle and complex judgment processes than what is possible with conventional Likert scales. Second, SJTs appear to be associated with less adverse impact on ethnic minorities, which may be of relevance for mitigating subgroup differences in any population under consideration (Schmitt et al., 2009). Third, SJTs can be repurposed as formative assessments to provide students with feedback on their competencies in the domain of interest. Fourth, SJTs have the advantage of face validity; that is, the situations presented to students “look and feel” like situations that would be encountered in real life. Fifth, there is evidence suggesting SJTs are less prone to faking than Likert items (Hooper et al., 2006). Finally, students report they are engaging and worth completing (Lipnevich et al., 2013), which better supports multiple administrations and retains student “buy-in” to the ongoing process of social emotional learning assessment. SJTs are not without their own limitations, however. For example, they are often multidimensional (McDaniel & Whetzel, 2007) and may have a fairly high reading load, which can be taxing for the respondent. # 3.4 Aggregate Scores The three item types are combined to yield a single, aggregate score per social emotional skill. Negatively worded items across the three item types are reverse scored. The Likert and SJT items are scored by averaging across all responses to yield a total score per construct, where higher scores are aligned with higher skill levels. The FC items are scored such that the statement that is selected as ‘most like me’ is scored with a 3, the statement not selected is scored with a 2, and the statement selected as ‘least like me’ is scored with a 1, then the values are averaged across the responses to yield a total score per construct where higher scores are aligned with higher skill levels. To create aggregate scores across the three item types, the Likert, FC, and SJT scores are standardized then averaged. These raw scores are then transformed into percentile scores and categorical scores, as well as a readiness index and Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning competency scores, all of which are discussed below. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 12 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 3.5 Percentiles Students’ percentile scores, based on normative samples (see sections 5.3 and 5.6), are reported. A normative sample is a representative sample of students that is used to infer the population’s score distribution. The scores are then organized in descending order and the percentage of students with each score is computed. Percentile scores indicate the percentage of students who obtained that score or lower. For example, a student with a Sustaining Effort percentile score of 45 indicates that 45% of the students in the norming sample obtained the same score or lower. # 3.6 Categorical Scores For ease of results interpretation, the average skill scores are also reported in a categorical manner. In reports provided to students, scores are conveyed using a four-point rating system that mimics a gas gauge. Specifically, there are four ordered categories based on skill level, with the lowest category labeled Developing, followed by Approaching, Demonstrating, and Mastering. The lowest and highest categories fall one standard deviation below and above the mean, respectively. Specifically, Developing includes students with percentile scores between 1 and 16, Approaching includes percentile scores between 17 and 50, Demonstrating includes percentile scores between 51 and 84, and Mastering includes percentile scores between 85 and 99. # 3.7 Mosaic Readiness Index In addition to the scores mentioned above, a Mosaic Readiness Index is provided to educators for high school students who take that version of the assessment. This is a summary index that uses item-level data from the assessment to optimize the prediction of academic readiness, as measured by high school grades, high school coursework, and ACT Composite scores. This information can be used to identify students who may need extra support for meeting their academic goals during high school. Figure 3.4 illustrates the predictive framework used to develop the Mosaic Readiness Index. First, academic readiness was regressed on Mosaic assessment item responses to find which items are predictive and what their weights (regression coefficients) are. Then, the Mosaic Readiness Index was scored by applying the weights to the Mosaic assessment data to derive a predicted academic readiness score. Because academic readiness is predictive of college outcomes, the Mosaic Readiness Index can be thought of as a direct predictor of high school academic success and an indirect predictor of college success. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 13 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Figure 3.4. Prediction Framework for the Development of the Mosaic Readiness Index Raw Mosaic Readiness Index scores have no inherent meaning; thus, percentiles are used for score reporting. Scores are also grouped into one of four levels based on the percentile, with the outermost two levels defined as being approximately one standard deviation above or below the mean of the norming sample. For each level, we assigned a name and description as follows: • Developing (1st to 16th percentile): Students most in need of additional supports to improve chances of academic success in postsecondary settings. • Approaching (17th to 50th percentile): Students in need of additional supports to improve chances of academic success in postsecondary settings. • Demonstrating (51st to 84th percentile): Students on track for academic success in postsecondary settings but who could benefit from some additional supports. • Mastering (85th to 99th percentile): Students with an excellent chance of academic success in postsecondary settings, with or without additional supports. A full account of the development of the Mosaic Readiness Index is provided by Allen et al. (2022). In addition, this report provides an interpretation of the four score levels in terms of predictions of academic outcomes associated with scores at each level. For each score level, Allen et al. (2022) provide the average predicted high school GPA and ACT Composite score. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 14 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 3.8 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) Core Competency Composite Scores In addition to a single score per social emotional skill, school aggregate and student roster reports include five composite scores that align with Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) core competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (CASEL, n.d.). Five subject matter experts agreed upon two skills that align with each CASEL competency (see Table 3.1; for full methodology, see Walton et al., 2019). The two skills are equally weighted by taking the mean of the two aggregate scores. For ease of interpretation, this mean is then transformed to a T score (standardized scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10). Means and standard deviation to compute the T scores were obtained from the normative samples reported on below in sections 5.3 and 5.6. Table 3.1. Alignment of Assessment Skills to the CASEL Competencies > CASEL Competency Mosaic Skills > Self-awareness Maintaining Composure > Social Connection > Self-management Sustaining Effort > Maintaining Composure > Social Awareness Getting Along with Others > Keeping an Open Mind > Relationship Skills Getting Along with Others > Social Connection > Responsible Decision-Making > Sustaining Effort > Getting Along with Others # 3.9 Interpreting Your Students’ Scores When examining students’ results, we need to consider all the contextual factors that may impact students’ skills, as well as their ability to demonstrate those skills. For example, to date, very little is known about how students with neurodevelopmental delays or who are neurodiverse interact with social emotional learning materials or display their social emotional skills. Therefore, a student who struggles to focus attention (e.g., a student with ADHD) may obtain assessment scores that reflect low Sustaining Effort even though the student’s Sustaining Effort skills might be high if they were compared only to other students with ADHD. Similarly, when interpreting results, one should bear in mind the Mosaic assessment is self-reported. For example, a student may struggle to maintain focus on a task, despite trying very hard to do so. The self-report might reflect the intention rather than what the educator or caregiver observes. If an educator or caregiver disagrees with the results of the assessment, it might be worthwhile having a conversation with the student. Indeed, when a discrepancy is observed between educator and/or caregiver perceptions and a student’s self-report, we recommend embracing the opportunity and using the reported results as a conversation starter to better understand how the student perceives him or herself. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 15 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Finally, we should keep in mind the impact of biases. There are unconscious biases that can be held by either the student or the educator or caregiver. For example, a student who tends to obtain low grades in academic subjects may be perceived as lower on any skill; this would be an example of the halo effect, a cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about their character. Moreover, despite attempts made to minimize students’ opportunities for impression management, moderate amounts may still occur. With all that in mind, honest self-reflection and open communication with students are the keystones for the interpretation of any assessment results. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 16 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # Chapter 4 Item Pool # 4.1 Initial Item Development To generate the initial item pool for Mosaic, professional item writers were provided assessment construct definitions written by research scientists (all of whom had PhDs in psychology) working on the development of the assessment. Items were contextualized so that portrayed scenarios would fit either a middle school or high school student’s experience. Research scientists reviewed each item, and items were then revised by the item writers based on the feedback provided. Additional item revisions or selections were made based on data collected from 1,654 middle school and 2,105 high school students who completed an earlier version of the assessment. Items were removed if they exhibited poor psychometric qualities (e.g., they failed to load highly on their target factor). The Relationships with School Personnel and School Safety climate scales were taken from ACT’s previous social emotional skills measure, ACT ®Engage ® (for information on the development of those scales, see ACT, 2016). # 4.2 Final Item Set The final item set for the middle school form includes 39 Likert items (seven for Maintaining Composure and eight for each of the other four constructs), and the high school form includes 37 Likert items (six for Keeping an Open Mind, seven for Maintaining Composure, and eight for all others). Both forms contain 10 SJTs (two per construct), each of which presents the situation followed by three possible behavioral responses, and 10 FC triads (30 items total with six per construct). The FC triads are balanced to ensure all possible triads are represented. There are 12 Relationships with School Personnel climate items and 11 School Safety climate items, all of which are Likert items, on both forms. Final Flesch-Kincaid reading levels are 5.2 and 5.8 for the middle school assessment and the high school assessment, respectively. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 17 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # Chapter 5 Reliability and Validity Evidence # 5.1 Procedure Below, we report reliability and validity evidence collected from students at schools that administered Mosaic by ACT: Social Emotional Learning Assessment during the 2018–2019 academic year. All schools reported on below completed the assessment by June 2019. Details of the student characteristics and psychometric properties of the scales also appear. Two forms were administered: middle school, which is designed for students in grades 6–8, and high school, which is designed for students in grades 9–12. Details of each are reported separately. Students took the assessment online during a class session that was designated by their schools. Schools allotted one class period for completion of the assessment, but additional time was granted if necessary. For middle school students, the median number of minutes required to complete the assessment was 27.8, and the mode was 21.6. For high school students, the median time for completion was 23.4 minutes, and the mode was 21.7 minutes. Prior to test administration, schools scheduled test administration times, and test administrators provided schools with student login information. Students received immediate feedback, and schools received a student roster report immediately. Later in the school year, schools received an aggregate school report. Schools reported their students’ grade level and gender. A subset of four school districts reported additional middle school student data including number of absences, number of disciplinary infractions, race/ethnicity, and free and reduced-price lunch status. A subset of 12 districts reported these data (as well as student GPA) for high school students. One of these districts also reported student scores on the ACT ® Aspire Assessment System ® (ACT, 2024a), which measures student academic performance in English, reading, math, science, and writing. The primary purpose of collecting these additional data was to further evaluate the test-criterion validity of the assessment scales and to further examine subgroup differences. Some data were missing for some schools or students so not all sample sizes are identical across analyses. Additional test-criterion validity evidence is available for a completely separate sample. This is a random sample of high school students who took the ACT on the National test date in February 2023. Upon completion of the ACT, an email invitation to participate in survey research went out to this random sample. They were informed that participation was voluntary, was not incentivized, and would in no way impact their ACT scores. The survey was branched such that a subset of items was presented to all participants while some items were presented to a smaller sample. This was done to reduce time burden on participants. As a result, the sample size varies across analyses, ranging from 466 to 2,707 respondents. All participants responded to the Big Five Inventory-2-short form (BFI; Soto & John, 2017), which is a 30-item measure of the Big Five personality factors. In addition, each participant received test-criterion validity items related to one of the five Mosaic social emotional skills. There were two items per skill, and these were written by a team of eight PhD-level psychologists very familiar with the Mosaic assessment. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 18 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 5.2 Method: Middle School Assessment 5.2.1 Participants A total of 24,400 students from 160 schools participated. The grade level breakdown is as follows: 6th grade = 3,864 (15.8%), 7th grade = 17,585 (72.1%), and 8th grade = 2,951 (12.1%) .The gender breakdown is as follows: female = 12,273 (50.3%) and male = 12,127 (49.7%) . 5.2.2 Data Exclusions Students with inconsistent (high variance) or non-varied (low variance) response patterns were flagged. High variance likely indicates careless responding, while low variance likely indicates acquiescent responding or some other response bias. There were 15 possible response patterns that could be flagged across item types and assessment skills (e.g., low variance across all Likert items, high variance across Sustaining Effort SJTs), and if any students had two or more flags, they were not scored. In a previous study used to establish exclusion rules ( N = 14,388 ), this led to 2.5% of the sample being excluded. # 5.3 Results 5.3.1 Evidence for Reliability The reliability (or precision) of an assessment refers to the consistency of scores obtained from the assessment ( The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing [below referred to as the Standards]; American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). Reliability evidence is always an important factor to consider in test development, and the need for precision increases when high-stakes decisions are made from test score interpretation. Two types of reliability evidence were collected: internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. The two lines of reliability evidence are discussed in turn below. Internal Consistency Reliability Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. The estimates for the three separate item types and the aggregate scores can be found in Table 5.1. Note that alpha values for SJTs and FC scales are typically lower than Likert scales due to their multidimensional nature (Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009) and ipsative nature, respectively. Table 5.1. Middle School Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach’s Alpha) > Mosaic Scale Likert Situational Judgment Test > Forced Choice Aggregate > Sustaining Effort .71 .66 .37 .72 > Getting Along with Others .81 .71 .50 .73 > Maintaining Composure .72 .61 .54 .72 > Keeping an Open Mind .76 .62 .35 .66 > Social Connection .73 .56 .46 .70 > Relationships with School Personnel .86 ——— > School Safety .84 ———Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 19 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Test-Retest Reliability Overall, 365 of the students completed the assessment twice during the course of the school year. The mean number of days between the two administrations was 196, and the median was 202 days (approximately 6–7 months). Test-retest correlations for the five social emotional skills were as follows: Sustaining Effort = .63, Getting Along with Others = .62, Maintaining Composure = .66, Keeping an Open Mind = .55, and Social Connection = .65 . For the two climate dimensions, test-retest correlations were: Relationships with School Personnel = .74 and School Safety = .68 . 5.3.2 Evidence for Validity Validity is defined as “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” (AERA, APA, & NCME, p. 11). Validity can be thought of as a unitary concept with multiple sources of evidence that can support the intended interpretation of test scores for their proposed use. Two types of validity evidence were reviewed, as outlined by the Standards. These include evidence based on content and test-criterion validity. The two types of evidence are discussed in turn below. Content Validity Evidence Standard 1.11 of the Standards discusses the need to establish content-oriented validity evidence (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014). Evidence based on test content validates the relationship between the test’s actual content and the constructs that the test intends to measure. This can include both logical and empirical analysis of how well the test items map to the intended constructs. Likert, FC, and SJT items were mapped onto the social emotional skill content domain by five independent raters. The raters, all of whom were psychology doctoral students or held a PhD in psychology, reviewed the construct definitions and selected which of the five constructs they believed each item represented. The intraclass correlation coefficients (two-way random with absolute agreement) for the Likert, FC, and SJT items reached .87, .97, and .57, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the climate items reached .88. For the Likert items, four or five of the raters correctly mapped 32 of the 40 items. For the FC items, four or five of the raters correctly mapped all 30 items. In addition, four or five of the raters correctly mapped nine of the ten SJTs, and 22 of the 23 climate items were correctly mapped by four or five raters. Test-Criterion Validity Evidence An additional standard outlined in the Standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) concerns the examination of evidence regarding relationships with criteria. These criteria performance measures are separate constructs that are hypothesized to be related to constructs measured by the test. Correlations between the five social emotional skills and the two climate scales are reported in Table 5.2. As expected (Allen et al., 2019; Osher & Berg, 2017), they were positively correlated. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 20 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.2. Middle School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions > SE Skill Relationships with School Personnel School Safety > Sustaining Effort .50* .38* > Getting Along with Others .50* .38* > Maintaining Composure .54* .43* > Keeping an Open Mind .48* .34* > Social Connection .49* .29* Note. N = 24,400 . *Correlation is significant, p < .05 . 5.3.3 Associations with GPA In addition, correlations between a 12-category self-reported GPA variable (e.g., A+, 97–100%; A, 93–96%; etc.) and the five social emotional skills and two climate dimensions were examined and are reported below in Table 5.3. Note that Poropat (2009) reports meta-analytic estimates for primary and secondary education. Given that middle school falls between these, Poropat’s primary and secondary estimates are both provided in Table 5.3. In line with his findings, Sustaining Effort had a strong relationship with GPA. In some cases, the Mosaic scales outperformed expectations based on prior literature. A regression model was fit with self-reported GPA as the outcome variable and the five scale scores as the predictor variables. The social emotional scales accounted for a significant amount of variance in GPA: R² = .15, F(5, 22,777) = 817.71, p < .01 . The positive correlations between GPA and Relationships with School Personnel and School Safety (Table 5.3) replicate prior research suggesting a positive association between academic performance and school climate (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Although the F test for change in R² was statistically significant (likely due to the large sample size and high power), no additional variance (i.e., less than 1%) was accounted for when entering climate in a second step in a hierarchical regression model: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 22,775) = 5.16, p = .01 . That is, school climate explained no incremental variance in GPA beyond that accounted for by the social emotional skills. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 21 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.3. Middle School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and GPA Mosaic Scale (Big Five Equivalent) Poropat’s (2009) Meta-Analysis Primary Education Secondary Education With Self-Reported GPA a Sustaining Effort (Conscientiousness) .28 .21 .38* Getting Along with Others (Agreeableness) .30 .05 .23* Maintaining Composure (Emotional Stability) .20 .01 .30* Keeping an Open Mind (Openness to Experience) .24 .12 .20* Social Connection (Extraversion) .18 −.03 .23* Relationships with School Personnel — — .20* School Safety — — .14* Note. aN = 22,783. *Correlation is significant, p < .05. See Figure 5.1 for an illustration of the relationship between social emotional skills and school climate and GPA. Individuals were identified as scoring in the 1st (bottom 25%), 2nd (second 25%), 3rd (third 25%), or 4th (top 25%) quartile on each construct. Average self-reported GPA, which ranged from 1 (E/F, below 65%) to 12 (A+, 97 –100%), was calculated for students within each quartile. For example, individuals falling in the bottom quartile on Sustaining Effort have an average GPA of slightly greater than a B − (80–82%), while individuals falling in the top quartile on these skills have an average GPA of nearly an A − (90–92%). That is, individuals with higher Sustaining Effort score roughly a full letter grade higher than individuals with lower Sustaining Effort. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 22 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Figure 5.1. Middle School Average Self-Reported GPA by Quartiles of Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions 5.3.4 Associations with Absences School-reported absences were available for 294 students. There are inconsistent findings on the associations between student characteristics and absenteeism reported in the literature. For example, Lounsbury et al. (2004) reported that, of the Big Five, openness had the strongest association with absenteeism among 7th and 12th graders and the second strongest association with absenteeism among 10th graders. For these primary and secondary students, openness had a negative association with absenteeism. However, the opposite effect has been reported among college students. Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003) also found the strongest relationship between absenteeism and openness among college students, but they were positively correlated with one another. Credé and colleagues (2010) carried out a meta-analysis which included a look at student characteristic-attendance relationships among college students and in general reported weak to moderate associations. Returning to the example of openness, they reported a near-zero association and instead reported the strongest (positive) effect for conscientiousness. We examined correlations between total number of absences ( M =8.34; SD = 7.68; minimum = 0; maximum = 48 ), which was a sum of excused and unexcused absences, and the five social emotional skills. The correlations were all near zero and none were significant: Sustaining Effort ( r = −.01 ), Getting Along with Others ( r = −.00 ), Maintaining Composure ( r = .06 ), Keeping an Open Mind ( r = .01 ), and Social Connection ( r = .01 ). Climate was also unrelated to absences: Relationships with School Personnel ( r = .02 ) and School Safety ( r = −.02 ). In terms of school climate, prior research shows that schools with poorer school climate generally have greater problems with absenteeism (ACT, 2016; Van Eck et al., 2017), though we found no association between climate and absenteeism. The social emotional skills did not account for a significant amount of variance in absences: R² = .01, F(5, 288) = .53, p = .76 . The same relationship was also seen for climate when entered into the hierarchical regression model: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 286) = .26, p = .77 . > 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.8 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 > 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 > 9.7 9.1 9.4 9.1 9.3 9.1 9.0 > 0 > 2 > 4 > 6 > 8 > 10 > 12 > Sustaining Effort > Getting Along with Others > Maintaining Composure > Keeping an Open Mind > Social Connection > Relationships with School Personnel > School Safety > GPA > 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 23 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. 5.3.5 Associations with Discipline School-reported numbers of disciplinary infractions were available for 350 students. Table 5.4 provides the correlations between the assessment scales and number of reported disciplinary infractions ( M = 1.30; SD = 3.13; minimum = 0; maximum = 25 ). Prior research on behavior problems in children and adolescents suggests Sustaining Effort, Getting Along with Others, and Maintaining Composure should have negative associations with discipline, and Keeping an Open Mind and Social Connection should have positive, yet smaller associations (Tackett, 2006; Tackett et al., 2013). Correlations were largely in the expected direction, but Sustaining Effort had the strongest relationship with discipline ( r = −.15 ) rather than Getting Along with Others like some prior research suggests (Tackett et al., 2013). A regression model was fit with number of reported disciplinary infractions as the outcome variable and the five social emotional skills as the predictor variables. The assessment scales accounted for a significant amount of variance in discipline: R² = .04, F(5, 344) = 2.88, p < .05 . Perceptions of positive school climate, including better relationships at school and feelings of safety, ought to be associated with fewer behavioral problems (Osher & Berg, 2017). Although in the expected direction, the correlations between number of disciplinary infractions and Relationships with School Personnel ( r = −.08 ) and School Safety ( r = −.03 ) were small. No additional variance was explained when climate was entered into a hierarchical regression model predicting number of disciplinary infractions: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 342) = .75, p = .47 . Rather than reporting the number of disciplinary infractions, some schools only provided a binary response (i.e., no infractions vs. at least one; N = 504 ). We dichotomized the continuous responses some schools provided and combined them with the binary responses and carried out an independent samples t-test to compare these students. These results and standardized effect sizes are reported in Table 5.2. Students with no disciplinary infractions scored higher on all social emotional skills with the strongest effect for Sustaining Effort, d = .55 . In general, there was a negative relationship between discipline rates and school climate, though the only test that was statistically significant was the test comparing relationships between those with no disciplinary infractions and those with at least one, d = .33 .Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 24 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.4. Middle School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Discipline > Mosaic Scale ra > 0 Discipline Problems b > MSD > ≥ 1 Discipline > Problem c > MSD > td > Sustaining Effort −.15* .13 1.14 −.46 .93 5.81* .55 > Getting Along with Others −.06 .34 1.46 −.13 1.90 3.13* .30 > Maintaining Composure −.11* .10 1.18 −.30 1.29 3.50* .33 > Keeping an Open Mind −.02 .06 1.40 −.29 1.22 2.76* .26 > Social Connection .03 −.00 1.24 −.22 1.18 1.95 .18 > Relationships with School Personnel −.08 4.12 .86 3.85 .84 3.45* .33 > School Safety −.03 4.27 .80 4.15 .83 1.63 .15 Note . aN = 350. bN = 335. cN = 169. *p < .05. 5.3.6 Subgroup Differences Finally, demographic group differences were evaluated to determine whether there were any significant subgroup differences on the assessment scales. Independent samples t-tests were carried out to compare students who were identified as male vs. female (self-reported), free and reduced lunch status versus not (school-reported), and those who identified as White versus an underserved racial/ethnic group (school-reported). The underserved racial-ethnic group included students who identified as any racial or ethnic group other than White or Asian. This included American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and bi/multiracial students. Asian students typically are not underrepresented in higher education settings, and there were only three Asian students in this dataset, so they were not included in either of the two groups. Descriptive statistics for the scales, as well as results of the t-tests and standardized effect sizes, can be found in Tables 5.4–5.6. Gender Differences De Bolle et al. (2015) reported findings from a large cross-cultural study of gender differences in adolescence. From ages 12–14, females scored significantly higher than males on each of the Big Five (see above for Big Five-assessment alignment) with the exception of emotional stability. The most consistent and robust findings were for conscientiousness and openness, with all standardized effect sizes exceeding .25 for openness and .30 for conscientiousness. At age 12, female students scored higher than male students on emotional stability, but to a trivial degree: d = .01 . By age 13, female students scored lower than male students on emotional stability, but the difference was not statistically significant. Our findings are largely in line with De Bolle and colleagues’ in terms of direction and magnitude of observed effects. Female and male students had significantly different scores on all social emotional skills with female students scoring higher on all constructs (see Table 5.5). Effect sizes ranged from .07 (Maintaining Composure) to .31 (Getting Along with Others). Gender differences on climate Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 25 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. were statistically significant yet slight with effect sizes less than ±.04 . Previous research shows that male students typically report lower climate scores than female students (Buckley et al., 2003; Koth et al., 2008). Table 5.5. Middle School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions > Mosaic Scale Female a > MSD > Male b > MSD td > Sustaining Effort .12 1.28 −.18 1.17 19.06* .24 > Getting Along with Others .47 1.74 −.06 1.62 24.57* .31 > Maintaining Composure .04 1.38 −.05 1.33 5.17* .07 > Keeping an Open Mind .18 1.26 −.14 1.29 19.56* .25 > Social Connection .07 1.32 −.12 1.34 10.92* .14 > Relationships with School Personnel 3.98 .87 3.95 .84 2.69* .03 > School Safety 4.25 .89 4.28 .87 −2.70* −.03 Note . aN = 12,273. bN = 12,127. *p < .05. Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Status Differences Free and reduced-price lunch status was the only index available related to socioeconomic status (SES), and this was available for a subset of the students ( N = 504 ). Meta-analytic data suggest that parental SES has weak, positive associations with young adults’ Big Five personality traits, with the strongest observed effect size for openness at .14 (Ayoub et al., 2018). However, we observed the opposite direction in our data set; students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches scored significantly higher on Keeping an Open Mind, d = −.19 . There were no other significant social emotional skill differences observed and no other sizable effects (see Table 5.6). Students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch also scored significantly higher on School Safety, d = −.23 . This differs from some previous research showing that higher concentrations of student populations with family incomes below the poverty line are negatively related to climate scores (Allen et al., 2019). However, students who are provided food by the school probably feel safer and more supported at school, especially if they would not have had food otherwise. The results of a recent meta-analysis on climate and SES showed that a positive school climate can lessen the negative effects of low SES on academic achievement. The moderating influence of school climate was particularly strong for students from low SES backgrounds, such that these students do better academically when in a positive school climate (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 26 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.6. Middle School Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Status Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions > Mosaic Scale > Ineligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch a > MSD > Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch b > MSD > td > Sustaining Effort .03 1.19 −.12 −.12 1.37 .13 > Getting Along with Others .22 2.05 .17 .17 .37 .03 > Maintaining Composure −.04 1.26 −.03 −.03 −.11 −.01 > Keeping an Open Mind −.24 1.32 .02 .02 −1.99* -.19 > Social Connection −.05 1.28 −.09 −.09 .28 .03 > Relationships with School Personnel 4.10 .92 4.00 .83 1.18 .11 > School Safety 4.09 .85 4.29 .79 −2.47* −.23 Note . aN = 153. bN = 351. *p < .05. Race/Ethnicity Differences According to Foldes and colleagues’ (2008) meta-analytic data, White and Black students generally show negligible differences with a few exceptions (exceptions are those with d > .20 ); White students score higher than Black students on the emotional stability facet of low anxiety and score higher on global measures of extraversion and the facet of sociability. For the most part, small differences are found between White and Hispanic students also, but Hispanic students score higher on low anxiety (Foldes et al., 2008). There were fairly small effect sizes observed in our data, which is consistent with Foldes and colleagues’ findings. Underserved students ( N = 200 ) scored higher than White students ( N = 299 ) on all social emotional skills and climate dimensions, though the only difference that was statistically significant was Keeping an Open Mind (see Table 5.7). Effect sizes ranged from −.03 (Relationships with School Personnel) to −.18 (Getting Along with Others and Keeping an Open Mind). There were no significant differences on the climate dimensions. This differs from previous research in that White students typically report higher climate scores as compared to students of color (Koth et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010). Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 27 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.7. Middle School Race/Ethnicity Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions Mosaic Scale White a M SD Underserved b M SD t d Sustaining Effort −.12 1.16 −.02 1.03 −.98 −.09 Getting Along with Others .07 1.36 .36 1.97 −1.97 −.18 Maintaining Composure −.12 1.18 .09 1.32 −1.87 −.17 Keeping an Open Mind −.16 1.44 .08 1.21 −1.97* −.18 Social Connection −.12 1.27 .01 1.15 −1.16 −.11 Relationships with School Personnel 4.02 .91 4.05 .78 −.38 −.03 School Safety 4.18 .83 4.30 .78 −1.64 −.15 Note . aN = 299. bN = 200. *p < .05. # 5.4 Norms The percentile scores and categorical scores which are based on the percentile scores are both calculated in reference to a normative sample of 21,275 middle school students who previously completed the assessment. # 5.5 High School Assessment Most procedures and analyses were identical to those discussed above for Middle School; therefore, we primarily report only statistics in this section. Any deviations or additional analyses are explained below in detail. # 5.6 Method 5.6.1 Participants A total of 9,112 students from 93 schools participated. The grade level breakdown is as follows: 9th grade = 5,413 (59.4%), 10th grade = 1,739 (19.1%), 11th grade = 1,002 (11.0%), and 12th grade = 958 (10.5%) . The gender breakdown is as follows: female = 4,792 (52.6%) and male = 4,320 (47.4%) . 5.6.2 Data Exclusions Flagging procedures were the same as that for Middle School. In a previous sample used to establish exclusion rules ( N = 5,575 ), using this method led to 1.4% of the sample being excluded. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 28 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # 5.7 Results 5.7.1 Evidence for Reliability Internal consistency reliability Internal consistency was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. The estimates can be found in Table 5.8. Table 5.8. High School Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates (Cronbach’s Alpha) > Mosaic Scale Likert SJT Forced Choice Aggregate > Sustaining Effort .84 .73 .40 .70 > Getting Along with Others .83 .65 .46 .76 > Maintaining Composure .75 .64 .64 .61 > Keeping an Open Mind .77 .56 .56 .66 > Social Connection .72 .54 .54 .65 > Relationships with School Personnel .88 ——— > School Safety .85 ——— Test-retest reliability Of the students reported on above, 187 completed the assessment twice during the course of the school year. The mean number of days between Time 1 and Time 2 was 142, and the median was 152 days (approximately 5 months). Test-retest correlations were as follows: Sustaining Effort = .76, Getting Along with Others = .64, Maintaining Composure = .58, Keeping an Open Mind = .68, and Social Connection = .65 . For the two climate dimensions, test-retest correlations were: Relationships with School Personnel = .68 and School Safety = .72 . 5.7.2 Evidence for Validity Content validity evidence As with Middle School, a panel of subject matter experts reviewed the construct definitions and selected which of the five constructs they believed each item represented. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the Likert items and SJTs reached .77 and .86, respectively. Four or five of the raters correctly mapped 31 of 40 Likert items. Nine of the ten SJTs were correctly mapped by four or five raters. The FC and climate items on Middle School and High School are identical. Test-criterion validity evidence Correlations between the five social emotional skills and the two climate scales are presented in Table 5.9. As expected, all are positive (Allen et al., 2019; Osher & Berg, 2017). Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 29 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.9. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions > SE Skill Relationships with School Personnel School Safety > Sustaining Effort .41* .29* > Getting Along with Others .44* .33* > Maintaining Composure .41* .32* > Keeping an Open Mind .39* .24* > Social Connection .42* .19* Note. N = 9,112. * p < .05. Associations with GPA Correlations between a 12-category self-reported GPA variable (e.g., A+, 97–100%; A, 93–96%; etc.) and the five social emotional skills and climate were examined and are reported in Table 5.10. All were positive and significant and, in line with Poropat’s (2009) meta-analytic findings, Sustaining Effort had the strongest relationship with GPA. In all cases, the scales outperformed expectations based on prior literature (Poropat, 2009). A regression model was fit with self-reported GPA as the outcome variable and the five social emotional skills as the predictor variables. The scales accounted for a significant amount of variance in GPA: R² = .24, F(5, 8,876) = 553.30, p < .01 . Although the F test for change in R² was statistically significant (likely due to the large sample size and high power), no additional variance was accounted for when entering climate in a second step in a hierarchical regression model: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 8,874) = 15.09, p < .01 . Table 5.10. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and GPA > Mosaic Scale (Big Five Equivalent) > Poropat’s (2009) Meta-Analysis > With Self-Reported GPA a > With School-Reported GPA b > Sustaining Effort (Conscientiousness) .21 .48* .41* > Getting Along with Others (Agreeableness) .05 .27* .29* > Maintaining Composure (Emotional Stability) .01 .21* .18* > Keeping an Open Mind (Openness to Experience) .12 .20* .17* > Social Connection (Extraversion) −.03 .18* .11* > Relationships with School Personnel —.21* .13* > School Safety —.17* .14* Note. aN = 8,882. bN = 1,058. *p < .05. Table 5.10 also provides the correlations between the assessment scales and school-reported GPA in the subsample. For the 1,035 students with both self- and school-reported GPA, the correlation between the two reached .76. As expected (Poropat, 2009), Sustaining Effort had Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 30 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. the strongest association with GPA. A regression model was fit with school-reported GPA as the outcome variable and the five social emotional skills as the predictor variables. The five skills accounted for a significant amount of variance in GPA: R² = .19, F(5, 1,052) = 50.06, p < .01 .Adding school climate in a second step of a hierarchical regression did not result in additional variance accounted for: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 1,050) = .22, p = .15 . See Figure 5.2 for a graphical depiction of the self-report findings. Individuals were identified as scoring in the 1st (bottom 25%), 2nd (second 25%), 3rd (third 25%), or 4th (top 25%) quartile on each construct. These quartiles were compared in terms of their self-reported GPA, which ranged from 1 (E/F, below 65%) to 12 (A+, 97–100%). For example, individuals falling in the bottom quartile on Sustaining Effort have an average GPA of less than a B − (80–82%), while individuals falling in the top quartile on these skills have an average GPA of over an A − (90– 92%). That is, individuals high on Sustaining Effort score more than a full letter grade higher than individuals low on Sustaining Effort. Figure 5.2. High School Average Self-Reported GPA by Quartiles of Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions Associations with Absences School-reported absences were available for 890 students. We examined correlations between total number of absences ( M = 8.64; SD = 11.18; minimum = 0; maximum = 101.5 ), which was a sum of excused and unexcused absences, and the five social emotional skills and two climate dimensions (see second column of Table 5.11). A greater number of absences was significantly associated with lower Sustaining Effort, Getting Along with Others, and Maintaining Composure. The five social emotional skills together accounted for a significant amount of variance in absenteeism: R² = .03, F(5, 884) = 5.67, p < .01 . No additional variance in absenteeism was > 6.8 > 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 > 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.7 > 10.1 > 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.0 > 0 > 2 > 4 > 6 > 8 > 10 > 12 > Sustaining Effort > Getting Along with Others > Maintaining Composure > Keeping an Open Mind > Social Connection > Relationships with School Personnel > School Safety > GPA > 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 31 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. explained by adding the climate dimensions to the model: ΔR² = .00, F(2, 882) = .78, p = .46 .The correlations were of greater magnitude than in the middle school sample, which likely reflects greater autonomy among high school students relative to middle school students. That is, in high school, student characteristics likely play a greater role in behaviors such as truancy, whereas in middle school, student absenteeism is more likely to reflect family characteristics. Although inconsistent findings are reported in the literature and it is therefore difficult to evaluate our findings in relation to those in the extant literature, what is important to note is that High School social emotional skills explain a significant amount of variance in absenteeism. Table 5.11. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Absenteeism > Mosaic Scale raAcceptable b > MSD > Habitual c > MSD > Chronic d > MSD F > Sustaining Effort −.14* −.12 1.32 −.48 1.26 −.68 1.41 10.07* > Getting Along with Others −.11* .00 1.27 −.08 1.27 −.49 1.16 5.67* > Maintaining Composure −.08* .02 1.23 −.17 1.05 −.28 1.22 3.43* > Keeping an Open Mind −.03 −.10 1.30 −.16 1.23 −.21 1.38 .34 > Social Connection −.02 −.22 1.27 −.13 1.32 −.41 1.24 .24 > Relationships with School Personnel −.02 3.82 .88 3.64 .92 3.74 .90 2.97 > School Safety −.02 4.22 .79 4.07 .85 4.08 .94 3.04* Note . aN = 890. bN = 636. cN = 168. dN = 86. F df = 2, 887. *p < .05. We also split the sample into three groups representing students with acceptable absentee records (fewer than 10 missed days), habitual absentee records (defined as at least 10 missed days but fewer than 18), or chronic absentee records (defined as 18 or more missed days) and examined group mean differences. Most states describe chronic absenteeism as missing 10% or more days within a school year (Attendance Works, n.d.), which would equate to 18 or more days, and some states consider missing 10 or more days within a school year as being habitually truant (Colorado Department of Education, 2024). The chronic group had the lowest means on all skills, and there were statistically significant group differences on Sustaining Effort, Getting Along with Others, and Maintaining Composure, as well as School Safety. Post-hoc analyses showed that the acceptable group scored significantly higher than the habitual and chronic groups on Sustaining Effort, the chronic group scored significantly lower than the acceptable and habitual groups on Getting Along with Others, the acceptable group scored significantly higher than the chronic group on Maintaining Composure, and the acceptable group scored significantly higher than the habitual group on School Safety. See Figures 5.3 and 5.4 for a depiction of the differences on the social emotional skills and climate. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 32 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Figure 5.3. High School Associations between Social Emotional Skills and Absenteeism Note : *The groups differ significantly, p <.05 . Figure 5.4. High School Associations between Climate Dimensions and Absenteeism Note : *The groups differ significantly, p <.05 . Associations with Discipline Table 5.12 provides the correlations between the assessment scales and number of reported disciplinary infractions ( M = 3.26; SD = 6.13; minimum = 0; maximum = 54 ). Social Connection had the strongest relationship with discipline ( r = .12 ). A regression model was fit with number of reported disciplinary infractions as the outcome variable and the five social emotional skills as the predictor variables. The skills accounted for a significant amount of variance in discipline: R²= .07, F(5, 715) = 9.88, p < .01 . Entering the two climate dimensions into the second step of a > -0.12 > 0.00 0.02 > -0.10 > -0.22 > -0.48 > -0.08 > -0.17 -0.16 -0.12 > -0.68 > -0.49 > -0.28 > -0.21 > -0.41 > -0.80 > -0.60 > -0.40 > -0.20 > 0.00 > Sustaining Effort* Getting Along with Others* > Maintaining Composure* > Keeping an Open Mind > Social Connection > Mosaic Scores > Acceptable Habitual Chronic > 3.82 > 4.22 > 3.64 > 4.07 > 3.74 > 4.08 > 3.00 > 3.20 > 3.40 > 3.60 > 3.80 > 4.00 > 4.20 > 4.40 > Relationships with School Personnel School Safety* > Mosaic Scores > Acceptable Habitual Chronic Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 33 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. hierarchical regression led to a significant increase in variance explained: ΔR² = .03, F(2, 713) = 12.40, p < .01 . Results of the dichotomized (i.e., no infractions vs. at least one) discipline variable are reported in Table 16. There were significant mean group differences on Sustaining Effort ( d = .17 ), Getting Along with Others ( d = .23 ), Maintaining Composure ( d = .13 ), Social Connection ( d = −.22 ), Relationships with School Personnel ( d = .13 ), and School Safety ( d = .18 ). With the exception of Social Connection, the group with no discipline problems exhibited better social emotional skills and better perceptions of school climate. Any differences in direction of the effect across binary and continuous analyses, which occurred specifically for Keeping an Open Mind and School Safety, are due to non-identical samples used across the analyses. Table 5.12. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions and Discipline > Mosaic Scale ra > 0 Discipline Problems b > MSD > ≥ 1 Discipline > Problem c > MSD > td > Sustaining Effort −.05 .02 1.29 −.19 1.28 3.11* .17 > Getting Along with Others −.09* .21 1.21 −.07 1.28 4.16* .23 > Maintaining Composure −.05 .13 1.20 −.02 1.22 2.30* .13 > Keeping an Open Mind .05 .14 1.25 .07 1.33 .99 .05 > Social Connection .12* −.23 1.26 .05 1.26 −4.05* −.22 > Relationships with School Personnel −.08* 3.89 .80 3.78 .90 2.34* .13 > School Safety .08* 4.35 .73 4.21 .80 3.26* .18 Note . aN = 721. bN = 982. cN = 508. *p < .05. Additional Test-Criterion Validity Evidence As mentioned above, additional test-criterion validity evidence is available for a different sample (i.e., the random sample of students who took the ACT on the National test date in February 2023). Correlations with the BFI can be found in Table 5.13. Each Mosaic skill correlates most highly with its intended Big Five Factor (i.e., Sustaining Effort with conscientiousness, Getting Along with Others with agreeableness, Maintaining Composure with emotional stability, Keeping an Open Mind with openness to experience, and Social Connection with extraversion), providing evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 34 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Table 5.13. High School Associations Between Social Emotional Skills and the Big Five Factors Big Five Factor SE GA MC KO SC Conscientiousness .48* .21 .30 −.03 .11 Agreeableness .15 .50* .17 .08 .04 Emotional Stability .27 .10 .56* .11 .20 Openness −.03 .22 .14 .44* .28 Extraversion .16 .17 .34 .26 .63* Note . SE = Sustaining Effort. GA = Getting Along with Others. MC = Maintaining Composure. KO = Keeping an Open Mind. SC = Social Connection. Correlations with an asterisk are expected to be highest as evidence of convergent validity. N = 2,707. Correlations with the outcome variables can be found in Table 5.14. Each skill correlated most highly with the expected outcomes, providing evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Table 5.14. High School Correlations Between Social Emotional Skills and Outcome Variables Variable SE GA MC KO SC Compared with others, to what extent do you try to challenge yourself to work harder? a .60* .11 .23 .06 .20 To what extent have you checked that your homework (or work) is free from errors before turning it in? a .55* .13 .15 −.01 .09 How well did you get along with students who are different from you? b .02 .42* .20 .19 .20 When others disagreed with you, how respectful were you of their views? b .15 .53* .18 .07 −.02 How many days in the past week have you felt nervous? c −.27 −.06 −.37* −.02 −.04 To what extent have setbacks affected your mood for the day? c −.23 −.14 −.38* −.08 −.08 How often have you read a book just to learn something about a topic? d .02 .11 .15 .42* .19 How often do you like to try new ways of doing things? d .09 .12 .21 .34* .27 How many extracurricular activities are you currently involved in? e .16 .06 .21 .09 .30* How likely are you to speak up during class discussions? e .04 .10 .27 .29 .58* Note . SE = Sustaining Effort. GA = Getting Along with Others. MC = Maintaining Composure. KO = Keeping an Open Mind. SC = Social Connection. aN = 466. bN = 467. cN = 473. dN = 465. > e N = 477. Correlations with an asterisk are expected to be highest as evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 35 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. 5.7.3 Subgroup Differences Finally, demographic group differences were evaluated to determine whether there were any significant subgroup differences on the assessment scales. In addition to the independent samples t-tests described above, subgroup differences on the ACT Aspire Assessment System were examined for one school who provided those data on their 9th-grade students to compare the magnitude of differences on academic content versus social emotional skills. We report on the ACT Aspire Interim Composite score (i.e., the mean score of the four subject area tests) only as all subtests yielded the same pattern of results. Gender differences De Bolle et al. (2015) reported findings from a large cross-cultural study of gender differences in adolescence. From ages 15–17, female students scored significantly higher than male students on conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience (see above for crosswalk between Big Five and assessment constructs). Female students scored significantly higher than their male counterparts on extraversion at ages 15 and 16 and significantly higher on agreeableness at age 17. Emotional stability (Maintaining Composure) shows the most interesting developmental pattern, with female students scoring slightly higher than, or equal to, male students in early adolescence, but then male students surpassing female students in middle to late adolescence, with that difference maintaining through adulthood (De Bolle et al., 2015). In terms of social emotional skills, female students scored significantly higher on Sustaining Effort, Getting Along with Others, and Keeping an Open Mind, with standardized effect sizes ranging from .24 (Keeping an Open Mind) to .46 (Getting Along with Others; see Table 5.15). Male students scored significantly higher on Maintaining Composure, d = −.12 . These findings are largely in line with previous findings in terms of direction and magnitude of observed effects. Moreover, the developmental pattern for Maintaining Composure is largely replicated across the middle and high school forms of the assessment. Male students scored significantly higher than female students on School Safety, d = −.07 . Male and female students did not score significantly different from one another on ACT Aspire. Table 5.15. High School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills, School Climate Dimensions, and ACT Aspire > Mosaic or Cognitive Scale Female a > MSD > Male b > MSD td > Sustaining Effort .17 1.38 −.35 1.30 18.58* .39 > Getting Along with Others .39 1.35 −.23 1.27 22.24* .46 > Maintaining Composure −.03 1.22 .13 1.34 −5.66* −.12 > Keeping an Open Mind .21 1.24 −.09 1.33 11.23* .24 > Social Connection −.14 1.28 −.18 1.24 1.56 .03 > Relationships with School Personnel 3.92 .85 3.91 .86 .75 .02 > School Safety 4.26 .84 4.31 .80 −3.19* −.07 > ACT Aspire 162.30 c3.48 162.61 d3.84 −.74 −.09 Note . aN = 4,792 for all variables except ACT Aspire. bN = 4,320 for all variables except ACT Aspire. cN = 142. dN = 173. *p < .05. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 36 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Free and reduced-price lunch status differences When comparing students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch with ineligible students, there were no significant differences observed and no sizable effect sizes (see Table 5.16). The school with available ACT Aspire scores did not have available data on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility. Table 5.16 . High School Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Status Differences on Social Emotional Skills and School Climate Dimensions Mosaic Scale Ineligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch a M SD Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch b M SD t d Sustaining Effort −.02 1.35 −.09 1.37 .81 .05 Getting Along with Others .10 1.26 .02 1.37 .99 .06 Maintaining Composure .05 1.17 −.09 1.26 1.81 .11 Keeping an Open Mind .02 1.25 .12 1.40 −1.23 −.08 Social Connection −.11 1.25 −.02 1.30 −1.18 −.07 Relationships with School Personnel 3.82 .92 3.77 .90 1.01 .06 School Safety 4.34 .80 4.24 .84 1.93 .12 Note. aN = 570. bN = 474. Race differences Underserved students scored higher than White students on all constructs, though the only difference that was statistically significant was Keeping an Open Mind, d = −.27 (see Table 5.17). Students in the underserved racial/ethnicity group also scored significantly higher on School Safety, d = −.22 . White students scored higher than underserved students on ACT Aspire, d = .64 . It is typical to observe greater subgroup differences on standardized achievement tests (ACT, 2024b) than on social emotional skills assessments (Foldes et al., 2008). Table 5.17. High School Gender Differences on Social Emotional Skills, School Climate Dimensions, and ACT Aspire Mosaic or Cognitive Scale White a M SD Underrepresented Minority b M SD t d Sustaining Effort −.17 1.33 −.07 1.24 −1.63 −.08 Getting Along with Others .02 1.32 .12 1.21 −1.57 −.08 Maintaining Composure −.02 1.23 .07 1.18 −1.41 −.07 Keeping an Open Mind −.09 1.27 .25 1.28 −5.38* −.27 Social Connection −.15 1.28 −.08 1.25 −1.08 −.05 Relationships with School Personnel 3.86 .90 3.80 .81 1.38 .07 School Safety 4.18 .81 4.35 .72 −4.44* −.22 ACT Aspire 163.92 c 3.99 161.53 d 3.15 5.88* .64 Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 37 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Note . aN = 922 for all variables except ACT Aspire. bN = 727 for all variables except ACT Aspire. cN = 123. dN = 190. *p < .05. # 5.8 Norms The percentile scores and categorical scores which are based on the percentile scores are both calculated in reference to a normative sample of 22,682 high school students who previously completed the assessment. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 38 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. # References Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (2), 219–245. ACT. (2016). Development and validation of ACT Engage ®: Technical manual. ACT. ACT. (2024a). ACT ® Aspire ® Periodic technical manual. ACT. ACT. (2024b). The ACT ® technical manual . ACT. Allen, J., Anguiano-Carrasco, C., & Walton, K. E. (2022). Predicting academic readiness from social emotional assessment data: Development of the Mosaic Readiness Index. ACT. Allen, J., Way, J. D., & Casillas, A. (2019). Relating school context to measures of psychosocial factors for students in grades 6 through 9. Personality and Individual Differences, 136 (1), 96–106. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47 (1), i–171. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA. Attendance Works. (n.d.). Chronic absence. Retrieved from https://www.attendanceworks.org/chronic-absence/the-problem/ Ayoub, M., Gosling, S. D., Potter, J., Shanahan, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2018). The relations between parental socioeconomic status, personality, and life outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9 (3), 338–352. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (1–2), 9–30. Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , 6, 1 –64. Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. (2017). The intersection of school climate and social and emotional development. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Intersection-School-Climate-and-Social-and-Emotional-Development-February-2017.pdf Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87 (2), 425–469. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 39 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (6), 887–919. Buckley, M. A., Storino, M., & Sebastiani, A. M. (2003, August 7–10). The impact of school climate: Variation by ethnicity and gender. [Conference presentation.] Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association 2003, Toronto, ON, Canada. Camara, W., O’Connor, R., Mattern, K., & Hanson, M. A. (2015). Beyond academics: A holistic framework for enhancing education and workplace success. ACT. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT_RR2015-4.pdf Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: The foundations of trait measurement. Psychological Review, 50 (6), 559–594. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (4), 319–338. Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-choice item formats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance, 18 (3), 267–307. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (n.d.). What is the CASEL Framework? Retrieved from https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-framework/ Colorado Department of Education. (2024). Code of Colorado regulations: Standardized calculation for counting student attendance and truancy. Retrieved from https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=2782&fileName=1%2 0CCR%20301-78 Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139– 150). Erlbaum. Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80 (2), 272–295. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press. De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, F., McCrae, R. R., Löckenhoof, C. E., Costa, P. T., Jr., Aguilar-Vafaie, M. E., Ahn, C., Ahn, H., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Avdeyeva, T. V., Bratko, D., Brunner-Sciarra, M., Cain, T. R., Chan, W., Chittcharat, N., Crawford, J. T., Fehr, R., Ficková, E., … Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 40 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Terracciano, A. (2015). The emergence of sex differences in personality traits in early adolescence: A cross-sectional, cross-cultural study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108 (1), 171–185. De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five Personality Factors: The psycholexical approach to personality. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. De Raad, B., & Mlačić, B. (2015). The lexical foundation of the Big Five-Factor Model. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 191–216). Oxford University Press. Devine, J., & Cohen, J. (2007). Making your school safe: Strategies to protect children and promote learning. Teachers College Press. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 213– 229). Russel Sage Foundation. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 , 417–440. Drasgow, F., Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Nye, C. D., Hulin, C. L., & White, L. A. (2012). Development of the Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System (TAPAS) to support Army selection and classification decisions (Tech. Rep. No. 1311). United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91 (2), 166–174. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405–432. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45 (3–4) 294–309. Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. Constable & Robinson Limited. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44 (3), 329–344. Foldes, H. J., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in personality: Meta-analyses comparing five U.S. racial groups. Personnel Psychology, 61 (3), 579–616. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 41 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Ge, X., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Adjustment problems and emerging personality characteristics from early to late adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (3), 429– 459. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26–34. Grant, S., Hamilton, L. S., Wrabel, S. L., Gomez, C. J., Whitaker, A., Leschitz, J. T., Unlu, F., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., Baker, G., Barrett, M., Harris, M., & Ramos, A. (2017). Social and emotional learning interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. RR-2133-WF. RAND Corporation. Gregory, A., & Cornell, D. (2009). “Tolerating” adolescent needs: Moving beyond zero tolerance policies in high school. Theory Into Practice, 48 (2), 106–113. Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes in self-esteem of sixth- and seventh-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 117–127. Hontangas, P. M., de la Torre, J., Ponsoda, V., Leenen, I., Morillo, D., & Abad, F. J. (2015). Comparing traditional and IRT scoring of forced-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39 (8), 598–612. Hooper, A. C., Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Operational threats to the use of SJTs: Faking, coaching, and retesting issues. In J. A. Weekley and R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational Judgment Tests: Theory, measurement, and application. (pp. 205–232). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howard, A., & Choi, M. (2000). How do you assess a manager’s decision-making abilities? The use of situational inventories . International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8 (2), 85– 88. Hudson, N. W., Briley, D. A., Chopik, W. J., & Derringer, J. (2019). You have to follow through: Attaining behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117 (4), 839–857. Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13 (4), 371–388. James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890). Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescents: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36 (3), 224–251. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 42 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69 (2), 323–361. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). Guilford Press. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765–780. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530–541. Kankaraš, M., & Suarez-Alvarez, J. (2019). Assessment framework of the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills. OECD Directorate for Education. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/assessment-framework-of-the-oecd-study-on-social-and-emotional-skills_5007adef-en Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 165–172. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19 (1), 47–52. Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (1), 96–104. Kyllonen, P. C., & Lee, S. (2005). Assessing problem solving in context. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.) Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 11-25). Sage. Kyllonen, P. C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Personality, motivation, and college readiness: A prospectus for assessment and development (ETS RR-14-06). Educational Testing Service. Kyllonen, P. C., Roberts, R. D., & Stankov, L. (Eds.). (2008). Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs. Routledge. Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). High suspension schools and dropout rates for Black and White students. Education and Treatment of Children, 34 (2), 167–192. Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (2), 460–468. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 43 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Lipnevich, A. A., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2013). Assessing non-cognitive constructs in education: A review of traditional and innovative approaches. In D. H. Saklofske, C. R. Reynolds, & V. L. Schwean (Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 750–772). Oxford University Press. Lounsbury, J. W., Steel, R. P., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2004). An investigation of personality traits in relation to adolescent school absenteeism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33 (5), 457–466. MacCann, C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. (2012). The best years of our lives? Coping with stress predicts school grades, life satisfaction, and feelings about high school. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (2), 235–241. MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8 (4), 540–551. Mahoney, J. L., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2018). An update on social and emotional learning outcome research. Phi Delta Kappan, 100 (4), 18–23. Mammadov, S., (2021). Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 90 (2), 222–255. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58 (5), 364–376. Martin, J. E., Menten, A., Walton, K. E., Burrus, J., Anguiano-Carrasco, C., Olaru, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2019). A Rosetta Stone for social and emotional skills: Using the Big Five personality factors to understand, assess, and enhance social and emotional skills in primary and secondary education worldwide. Asia Society & ACT. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (3), 547–561. McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 730–740. McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 235–257). Erlbaum. Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80 (6), 271–279. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 44 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 574–583. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills (OECD Skills Studies) . OECD Publishing. Osher, D., & Berg, J. (2017). School climate and social and emotional learning: The integration of two approaches. Edna Bennet Pierce Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University. Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (2), 187–207. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135 (2), 322–338. Primi, R., Santos, D., John, O. P., & De Fruyt, F. D. (2016). Development of an inventory assessing social and emotional skills in Brazilian youth. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32 (1), 5–16. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130 (2), 261–288. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (1), 3–25. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R, Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (4), 313–345. Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (2), 117–141. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 1–25. Ruus, V.-M., Veisson, M., Leino, M., Ots, L., Pallas, L., Sarv, E.-S., & Veisson, A. (2007). Students’ well- being, coping, academic success, and school climate. Social Behavior & Personality, 35 (7), 919–936. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 45 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Schmitt, D., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self -description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38( 2), 173–212. Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (6), 1479–1497. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571–581. Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Taking skills seriously: Toward an integrative model and agenda for social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30 (1), 26–33. Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., Sewell, M. N., Yoon, H. J., & Roberts, B. W. (2022). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123 (1), 192–222. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2014). Traits in transition: The structure of parent-reported personality traits from early childhood to early adulthood. Journal of Personality, 82 (3), 182–199. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68 , 69–81. Stemler, S., & Bebell, D. (2012). The school mission statement: Values, goals, and identities in American education . Routledge. Tackett, J. L. (2006). Evaluating models of the personality-psychopathology relationship in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 26 (5), 584–599. Tackett, J. L., Kushner, S. C., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2013). Delineating personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Associations among measures, temperament, and behavioral problems. Assessment, 20 (6), 738–751. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 357–385. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (USAF ASD Technical Report, 61–97). U.S. Air Force. Mosaic Social Emotional Learning Technical Manual 46 > © 2024 by ACT Education Corp. All rights reserved. Van Eck, K., Johnson, S. R., Bettencourt, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2017). How school climate relates to chronic absence: A multi-level latent profile analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 61 , 89–102. Walton, K. E., Burrus, J., Anguiano-Carrasco, C., Way, J. D., & Murano, D. (2019). Aligning ACT Tessera by ACT to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) framework. ACT. Walton, K. E., Murano, D., Burrus, J., & Casillas, A. (2021). Multimethod support for using the Big Five framework to organize social and emotional skills. Assessment, 30 (1), 1–16. Walton, K. E., Radunzel, J., Moore, R., Burrus, J., Anguiano-Carrasco, C., & Murano, D. (2021). Adjectives vs. statements in forced choice and Likert item types: Which is more resistant to impression management in personality assessment? Journal of Personality Assessment, 103 (6), 842–853. Wang, L., MacCann, C., Zhuang, X., Liu, O. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Assessing teamwork and collaboration in high school students: A multimethod approach. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24 (2), 108–124. Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68 (3), 413–419. Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research. Human Resource Management Review, 19 (3), 188–202. Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7 (2), 168–190. Links/Buttons: This page does not seem to contain any buttons/links.

ACT, Inc.

Industries Sponsored

Latest Activity