2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Appropriate placement into college-level mathematics courses is essential for student success and retention. Misplacement can lead to academic struggles, reduced confidence, and increased attrition (Hodara et al., 2012; Scott-Clayton, 2018). At our institution, incoming students take an unproctored online placement test (OUPT) before enrolling in calculus courses. However, recent observations suggest that OUPT scores may not reliably reflect students’ actual preparedness.

In Summer 2024, six students were placed into Calculus II based on high OUPT scores. Three of these students scored significantly lower on a comparable in-person proctored precalculus assessment (IPPA) and struggled throughout the course. They should be placed into Calculus I base on IPPA. In contrast, the other three students, who performed similarly on the IPPA as in OUPT, succeeded in Calculus II. This observation, along with past instances of struggling students in calculus courses motivates a critical question at our institution: How reliable are OUPTs in appropriately assigning students into different courses?

While placement testing has been widely studied in relation to student outcomes, most research focuses on test design, predictive validity, and long-term impacts on retention and graduation (Bullock et al., 2009; Bahr, 2013). However, limited attention has been given to the reliability of unproctored online placement tests, especially in STEM disciplines. Existing studies that do address online placement reliability tend to focus on liberal arts contexts, such as language learning (Naqvi et al., 2023), leaving a gap in the literature regarding quantitative subjects.

This study aims to fill that gap by comparing overall and topic-specific scores from highly similar online and in-person precalculus placement exams for the same group of students, an approach that has not been seen in the literature yet.
Our research questions are:
1. To what extent does the unproctored online placement test (OUPT) provide reliable indicators of student readiness for Calculus I and Calculus II?
Additionally, how does this reliability vary across student subgroups based on prior academic preparation (e.g., AP scores), performance in calculus courses, and demographic factors such as gender?
2. How consistent is the topic-level reliability of the OUPT in assessing prerequisite knowledge for Calculus I and II?
Specifically, are certain mathematical domains (e.g., functions, trigonometry, algebraic manipulation) more prone to score discrepancies between the online and in-person assessments?
3. How do students perceive the fairness and accuracy of the OUPT compared to in-person assessments?

We draw on data from approximately 1,000 students, including OUPT and IPPA scores, surveys, and interviews. The IPPA was administered in person at the beginning of the semester. For RQ1, we analyze score differences using thresholds of ±10%, ±15%, ±20%, and ±25%. For RQ2, we examine individual test items by topic to assess discrepancies. . For RQ3, we use mixed method to analyze survey and interview responses.

Preliminary findings indicate that OUPT scores are not consistently reliable for accurate course placement. These results have significant implications for institutions relying on unproctored assessments, especially in high-stakes STEM contexts. Through this IRB-approved study, we aim to inform improvements to placement test design, identify content areas where students are most vulnerable, and advocate for more robust placement practices. We aim to present the detail findings at the 2026 ASEE Annual Conference and contribute to the broader discourse on equitable and effective placement strategies in higher education.