A: Often, decisions surrounding the adoption of deferred recruitment happen as a reaction to a negative instance on campus or even on a different campus. The UniLOA data used to create The Case for Fraternity Rights is the first true independent research that has become available surrounding the comparative impact on student development for both fraternity and non-fraternity men. Please contact NIC to learn more about how to help the decision makers on your campus aware of the research and its meaning.

A: The research completed by The Center for Learning Outcomes Assessment is 100% independent. NIC had no part in funding the research and had no involvement in its execution or the report that followed.

A: The Center for Learning Outcomes Assessment, housed at Indiana State University in Terre Haute, Indiana, engaged in active data collection over a 4-year period in cooperation with five national fraternities and several institutions of higher education.  The University Learning Outcomes Assessment (UniLOA) was chosen as the project’s assessment instrument.  The UniLOA is a 70-item, self-report instrument that collects data regarding student behaviors. The UniLOA collected valid responses to nearly 5,000 college men, representing over 300 unique institutions of higher education across the country through two protocols, including paper and pencil and electronic versions.  Reliability of results remains consistent between either of the two administration protocols.

A: The vast majority of score differences for both domains and items included in this research are statistically significant. Though Standard Deviation is the preferred statistic when interpreting differences in scores, it is only appropriate when the distribution of scores is normal. UniLOA domain and item score distributions are all negatively skewed, rendering Standard Deviation an unreliable indicator of variance. As such, we have to rely on overall patterns and observations over time, which tell us that: Score differences of 0-2 are considered “normal” and don’t draw attention from researchers. Those areas of difference are probably more based in normal statistical error than of something “real" Score differences of 2-3 are considered worthy of additional investigation. They trigger enough curiosity to beg the question “what might be going on here?” Score differences greater than 3 is always a “red flag” for researchers, and that “flag” gets more red and larger as the score increases beyond 3. These areas are markedly significant and show a clear differentiation either to the positive or the negative. Differences of +6.5, +8.2, and +11.0, as found in this report, are staggering.