Objective: Despite the popularity of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), this instrument has been criticized regarding its development, theoretical basis, validity, and connection to practice. In light of these concerns, this article reframes the survey by employing Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles, one of the survey’s original theoretical frameworks. A robust discussion of the new measure and its implications for research and practice is presented. Method: Chickering and Gamson’s theory was used to motivate, create, and evaluate a seven-factor model using items from the CCSSE. Drawing on responses from two community colleges (N = 1,076), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test this model. Results: Findings provide support for a seven-factor model with high model fit and moderate-to-strong factor reliability. Contributions: This study offers a valid alternative approach to considering CCSSE data that may influence future work in the area of community college student engagement. We also consider how institutional research practitioners and other stakeholders can leverage study insights to promote student success across community college contexts.
AngellL. R. (2009). Construct validity of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(7), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920801901217
2.
AstinA. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
BonetG.WaltersB. R. (2016). High impact practices: Student engagement and retention. College Student Journal, 50(2), 224–235.
5.
BronkemaR.BowmanN. A. (2018). Gender, campus friendships, and emotional connection. College Student Affairs Journal, 36(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/csj.2018.0003
6.
BrownS. K.BurdsalC. A. (2012). An exploration of sense of community and student success using the National Survey of Student Engagement. Journal of General Education, 61(4), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.61.4.0433
7.
BrownT. A. (2006). Data issues in CFA: Missing, non-normal, and categorical data. In KennyD. A. (Ed.), Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (pp. 363–411). Guilford.
8.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2017). Community College Survey of Student Engagement. https://www.ccsse.org
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S.BorkR. H.JonesS. M.VegaB. E. (2013). Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–50.
11.
DudleyD. M.LiuL.HaoL.StallardC. (2015). Student engagement: A CCSSE follow-up study to improve student engagement in a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(12), 1153–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.961589
12.
DuranA.JonesS. R. (2019). Context and contextualizing student development using critical theory. In AbesE. A.JonesS. R.StewartD.-L. (Eds.), Rethinking college student development theory using critical frameworks (pp. 171–186). Stylus.
13.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2013). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation models. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–314). Information Age.
14.
FloydD. L.OzakiC. C.DalpesP.RamdinG. (2020). Community college student affairs: Student success initiatives. In OzakiC. C.DalpesP.FloydD. L.RamdinG. (Eds.), The role of student affairs in advancing community college student success (pp. 1–6). Routledge.
15.
GibsonA. M.SlateJ. R. (2010). Student engagement at two-year institutions: Age and generational status differences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(5), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802466384
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SorbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.
18.
HatchD. K. (2012). Unpacking the black box of student engagement: The need for programmatic investigation of high impact practices. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 903–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.690319
19.
HatchD. K. (2017). The structure of student engagement in community college student success programs: A quantitative activity systems analysis. AERA Open, 3(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2332858417732744
20.
HeagneyM.BensonR. (2017). How mature-age students succeed in higher education: Implications for institutional support. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(3), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1300986
21.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
22.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
23.
JohnsonS. R.StageF. K. (2018). Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates?Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 753–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1441107
24.
JöreskogK. G.SörbomD. (2006). LISREL for windows (Version 8.80) [Computer software]. Scientific Software International.
KimbarkK.PetersM. L.RichardsonT. (2017). Effectiveness of the student success course on persistence, retention, academic achievement, and student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1166352
27.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford.
28.
KuhG. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University. http://nsse.indiana.edu/pdf/psychometric_framework_2002.pdf
29.
KuhG. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
LattucaL. R.StarkJ. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
32.
MandarinoC.MatternM. Y. (2010). Assessing the validity of CCSSE in an Ontario college. Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/CCSSE_ENG.pdf
33.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers to overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
MartiC. N. (2009). Dimensions of student engagement in American community colleges: Using the community college student report in research and practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701366867
36.
MayhewM. J.RockenbachA. J.BowmanN. A.SeifertT. A.WolniakG. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass.
37.
McClenneyK. (2007). Research update: The Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Community College Review, 35(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552107306583
38.
McCormickA. C.KinzieJ.GonyeaR. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research to practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In PaulsenM. (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research, 28 (pp. 47–92). Springer.
39.
McCormickA. C.McClenneyK. (2012). Will these trees ever bear fruit? A response to the special issue on student engagement. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0010
40.
NoraA.CrispG.MatthewsC. (2011). A reconceptualization of CCSSE’s benchmarks of student engagement. The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2011.0036
41.
PaceC. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences: An account of the development and use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (ERIC No. ED255099). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255099.pdf
42.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (Vol. 1). Jossey-Bass.
43.
PearceJ.DownB. (2011). Relational pedagogy for student engagement and success at university. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0037-5
44.
PikeG. R. (2013). NSSE benchmarks and institutional outcomes: A note on the importance of considering the intended use of a measure in validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9279-y
45.
RiberaA. K.MillerA. L.DumfordA. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 545–563. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0042
46.
RomanM. A.TaylorR. T.Hahs-VaughnD. (2010). The retention index of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE): How meaningful is it?Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(5), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701382484
47.
SaenzV. B.HatchD.BukoskiB. E.KimS.LeeK.ValdezP. (2011). Community college student engagement patterns: A typology revealed through exploratory cluster analysis. Community College Review, 39(3), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111416643
StewartD.-L. (2017). Engagement that matters: Exploring the relationship of co-curricular activities to self-reported gains in learning outcomes for racially minoritized students in the United States. In JacksonJ. F. L.CharlestonL. J.GilbertC. K. (Eds.), Advancing equity and diversity in student affairs: A Festschrift in honor of Melvin C. Terrell (pp. 53–76). Information Age Publishing.
50.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
51.
TillapaughD. (2019). Student involvement and engagement. In AbesE. A.JonesS. R.StewartD.-L. (Eds.), Rethinking college student development theory using critical frameworks (pp. 191–205). Stylus.
52.
TimmsC.FishmanT.GodineauA.GrangerJ.SibandaT. (2018). Psychological engagement of university students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2017-0107
53.
TintoV. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–127. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543045001089
WebberK. L.KrylowR. B.ZhangQ. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591–611. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0090
57.
Wolf-WendelL.WardK.KinzieJ. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0077
58.
WynerJ. S. (2014). What excellent community college students do: Preparing all students for success. Harvard Education Press.
59.
YuC.MuthénB. (2002, April). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, United States.
