Inventory of College Characteristics – Modified

Abstract

The Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified (ICCM), developed by Nunnally, Thistlethwaite, and Wolfe in 1963, represents a significant revision of earlier instruments, specifically the Inventory of College Characteristics (Thistlethwaite, 1960) and the College Characteristics Index (Stern, 1958). This psychometrics instrument is designed to assess undergraduate students’ perceptions of the characteristics of their college environment, focusing distinctly on faculty and student-related features. The ICCM originally comprised 180 items, divided equally into two sets: 90 items addressing faculty traits and 90 items focusing on student characteristics. Responses are captured using a seven-step agree-disagree rating scale. Subsequent factor analysis revealed 20 potential factors, from which 12 highly reliable factors (six pertaining to faculty and six to students) were retained for the final scale. The retained factors demonstrated robust internal consistency, with reliabilities ranging from 0.64 to 0.79 for the faculty scales and 0.60 to 0.79 for the student scales.

Keywords

Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified, College environment, Factor Structure, Test Development, Internal consistency, Student Attitudes, Teacher Attitudes, Educational Personnel, Test Reliability, Psychometrics

Authors

Nunnally, Jum C., Thistlethwaite, Donald L., Wolfe, Sharon

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ICCM is to systematically measure and quantify the subjective perceptions held by students regarding the operational and social characteristics of their academic institutions. By differentiating between faculty-centric and student-centric characteristics, the instrument provides a nuanced view of the institutional climate.

The scale was developed during a period of intense focus on how institutional characteristics influence student outcomes and development. It moves beyond simple demographic descriptions to capture the dynamic interactions and prevailing atmosphere within the college environment, serving as a valuable tool for educational researchers and administrators.

Construct

The central construct measured by the Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified is College Environment Characteristics. This construct is operationalized through two major domains: the characteristics related to the Faculty (e.g., teaching methods, availability, intellectual interests) and the characteristics related to the Students (e.g., intellectual drive, competition, social norms).

The ICCM assumes that the perceived environment is multidimensional and significantly impacts student experience and learning. The retained factors reflect key dimensions of this environment, such as academic rigor, social engagement, and institutional support.

Validity

Evidence for the validity of the ICCM is primarily derived from the comprehensive statistical procedure used during its development. A large-scale factor analysis was performed on the responses of undergraduate students, initially identifying 20 distinct factors underlying the 180 items. This analysis supported the theoretical multidimensionality of the college environment construct.

For the final instrument, 12 factors were rigorously selected and retained. This retention was based on a criterion of reliability, ensuring that only factors demonstrating an estimated reliability coefficient of 0.60 or higher were included, thus establishing strong construct validity based on the underlying factor structure.

Reliability

The reliability of the ICCM scales was assessed using measures of internal consistency. The resulting coefficients indicated acceptable to strong reliability for the derived factors. Specifically, the six factors related to Faculty characteristics demonstrated internal consistency reliability coefficients ranging from 0.64 to 0.79. The six factors related to Student characteristics showed coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.79.

These reliability ranges confirm that the retained scales are internally coherent and measure their intended dimensions consistently among the university student population studied.

Factor Analysis

The scale refinement process relied heavily on factor analysis of the 180 items. This statistical technique was used to reduce the large number of items into a smaller set of meaningful, independent factors representing core dimensions of the college environment. The initial analysis identified 20 potential factors.

Ultimately, a structured factor solution resulted in the retention of 12 robust factors—six describing faculty behavior and characteristics (F-I through F-VI) and six describing student behavior and characteristics (S-I through S-VI). The decision to retain these specific 12 factors was predicated on achieving an internal consistency reliability threshold of 0.60 or above for each factor, ensuring the practical utility and measurement quality of the derived scales.

Instrument

Test Type: Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Responses are recorded on a seven-step agree-disagree rating scale. The instrument comprises 180 items, split into two sets of 90 items focusing on faculty and students, respectively.

Language Available: English (Implied by US origin)

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Population Details: Sample: University Students; Location: United States

Test Methodology: Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis

Keywords

College Environment Characteristics, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Test Construction, Student Perceptions, Academic Rigor, Social Climate, University Students, Psychometrics

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Affiliations: Jum C. Nunnally (Vanderbilt University), Donald L. Thistlethwaite (Vanderbilt University), Sharon Wolfe (University of Illinois).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1963

Administration Method: Paper-based administration.

Test Items Available: Yes. The core factors and representative items are available in the published reference.

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding current permissions and licensing fees is not provided in the original source, but reference should be made to the publisher of the journal, Educational and Psychological Measurement, for reproduction rights.

Reference’s

Nunnally, J. C., Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Wolfe, S. (1963). Factored scales for measuring characteristics of college environments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 239–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446302300202

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1960). Inventory of College Characteristics. Unpublished instrument.

Stern, G. G. (1958). College Characteristics Index. Syracuse University Research Institute.

Items of the Inventory of College Characteristics–Modified

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Factor F-I: Systematized Energy of Faculty

• In most classes the presentation of material is well planned and illustrated.
• Instructors are pretty practical and efficient in the way they dispatch their business.
• Many of the instructors seem bored with their teaching assignments.
• Assignments are usually clear and specific, making it easy for students to plan their studies effectively.
• Instructors clearly explain the goals and purposes of their courses.
• Faculty members put a lot of energy and enthusiasm into their teaching.
• Most of the courses stress basic science or scholarship and really probe into the fundamentals of their subjects.
• Some professors here tend to belittle the students.
• Instructors really get students interested in their subjects.

Factor F-II: Toughness of Faculty

• Standards set by the professors are not particularly hard to achieve.
• It is fairly easy to pass most courses without working very hard.
• The professors really push the students’ capacities to the limit.
• There aren’t very many courses here which demand excellent performance by all students.
• The student can pass most courses just by learning what’s in the textbook.

Factor F-III: Availability of Faculty to Students

• Faculty members are available to students only during scheduled office hours.
• The professors seem to have little time for conversation with students.
• Professors frequently go out of their way to establish friendly relations with students.
• There are many facilities and opportunities for individual creative activity.
• The campus atmosphere does not seem to be very stimulating for faculty members.
• There is little opportunity here for pursuing independent study under the supervision of faculty members.

Factor F-IV: Interestingness of Lectures

• Lectures are frequently routine and duplicate material in the text.
• Personality, pull, and bluff get students through many courses.
• Many lectures are delivered in a monotone with little inflection or emphasis.
• Professors typically exhibit great interest and enthusiasm in their subjects.
• The professors really talk with the students, not just at them.

Factor F-V: Faculty Interest in Arts and Humanities

• Very few of the professors here try to get students interested in the humanities.
• The faculty encourages the student to take courses in the social sciences and humanities.
• Instructors have very little interest in drama or the arts.
• Advisors seem unaware that a well-rounded program of study includes courses in the arts and humanities.
• Student interest in understanding and criticizing important works in art, music, and drama is encouraged by the faculty.

Factor F-VI: Vocational Emphasis

• Very few of the courses here will be useful to students who go into business or industry.
• The academic atmosphere is not very helpful to the student who wants to specialize in business, engineering, management or other practical affairs.
• The university offers many really practical courses designed to prepare the student for his occupation.
• It is difficult to take clear notes in most courses.
• Very few instructors try to give the student the practical training he will need in his career field.

Factor S-I: Intellectual Drive of Students

• Long, serious philosophical discussions are common among the students.
• Books dealing with psychological problems of personal values are widely read and discussed.
• Most students here have strong intellectual commitments.
• There is a lot of interest in the philosophy and methods of science.
• There is a lot of interest here in poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc.
• When students get together they seldom talk about trends in art, music, or the theater.
• Students spend a lot of time planning their intellectual careers.
• There are lots of informal social groups in which people really enjoy listening to witty conversation.
• A controversial speaker always stirs up a lot of student discussion.
• Concerts and art exhibits always draw big crowds of students.

Factor S-II: Personal Appearance and Manners

• Very few students are concerned about being properly groomed.
• Students here don’t seem to care about their personal appearance.
• Students think about dressing appropriately and interestingly for different occasions‒classes, social events, sports, and other affairs.
• Proper social forms and manners are important here.

Factor S-III: Competition

• The competition for high achievement is intense.
• The competition for special honors is very tough.
• The high calibre of students here puts a lot of pressure on one.
• There is a great deal of rivalry for grades among students.
• There is really very little here in the way of student competition to contend with.
• It is relatively easy to win scholarship awards here.

Factor S-IV: Science Interest

• When students get together they seldom talk about science.
• Very few students here prefer to talk about science or mathematics as opposed to poetry or politics.
• Science and math are the dominant interests of most of my friends here.
• Few students are planning careers in science.
• There is a lot of interest in the philosophy and methods of science.
• Science is the most appealing way of life for a majority of the students here.

Factor S-V: Pressure Against Scholarly Activities

• A student who insists on analyzing and classifying art and music is likely to be regarded as a little odd.
• A student whose interests are confined to only a single area is likely to be regarded as a little odd.
• A student who spends most of his time in a science laboratory is likely to be regarded as a little odd.
• Students who are concerned with developing their own personal and private system of values are likely to be regarded as odd.
• Most students have very little interest in round tables, panel meetings, or other formal discussions.

Factor S-VI: Interest in Visiting Speakers

• A lecture by an outstanding literary critic would be poorly attended.
• There would be a capacity audience for a lecture by an outstanding philosopher or theologian.
• A lecture by an outstanding scientist would be poorly attended.
• Students respond enthusiastically to a colorful and dramatic speaker.
• A controversial speaker always stirs up a lot of student discussion.