Frequently Asked Questions
about LSSSE’s Psychometric Properties

How and why was the survey developed?
LSSSE was specifically designed to assess the extent to which law students are engaged in empirically derived good educational practices and what they gain from their law school experiences. Voluminous research on student development shows that the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development. Therefore, the LSSSE reports student behaviors that are highly correlated with many desirable learning and personal development outcomes of law school

What does the instrument cover?
The LSSSE survey instrument asks students to report the frequency with which they engage in activities that represent good educational practice. Students also record their perceptions of the law school environment associated with achievement, satisfaction, and persistence. Then, students estimate their educational and personal growth since starting college. Finally, students provide information about their background, including age, gender, race or ethnicity, living situation, educational status, and field of desired practice

Can we trust student self-reported data?
The validity and credibility of self-reports have been examined extensively. Self-reports are likely to be valid under five general conditions. They are: (1) when the information requested is known to the respondents; (2) the questions are phrased clearly and unambiguously; (3) the questions refer to recent activities; (4) the respondents think the questions merit a serious and thoughtful response; and (5) answering the questions does not threaten, embarrass, or violate the privacy of the respondent or encourage the respondent to respond in socially desirable ways. The LSSSE survey was intentionally designed to satisfy all these conditions.

Does the instrument yield valid information?
The LSSSE design team that developed the instrument worked very hard to make certain the items on the survey were clearly worded, well-defined, and had high face and content validity. Logical relationships exist between the items in ways that are consistent with the results of objective measures and with other research. The responses to the survey items are approximately normally distributed and the patterns of responses to different clusters of items discriminate among students both within and across institutions.

Is the instrument reliable?
Overall, the pattern of responses from law students suggest the items are measuring what they are supposed to measure. For example, 3Ls score higher than 1Ls in areas of analysis and synthesis of materials. This makes sense, as 3Ls are generally better equipped to parse cases and synthesize legal theory from other courses. On the other hand, as compared to upper level students, 1Ls report spending more time preparing for class, studying, and drafting multiple versions of papers. Likely such difference relates to the rigor of first-year curriculum and the extra challenge posed in adjusting to life in law school. Across the board, most JD students score comparably in areas related to peer interaction and diversity of experience. Overall, the items on the survey appear to be measuring what they are intended to measure and discriminate among students in expected ways.

Do non-respondents differ from respondents?
To determine whether respondents and non-respondents differed in their engagement in selected effective educational practices, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research examined a group of non-respondents from the related NSSE project. The Center conducted telephone interviews with 553 non-respondents. Overall, it appears that undergraduate students who do not complete the NSSE survey when invited to do so may actually be slightly more engaged than respondents. This is counter to what many observers believe, that non-respondents have a less educationally productive experience and, as a result, do not respond to surveys. The findings suggest that the opposite may be true, that non-respondents are busier in many dimensions of their lives and don't take time to complete surveys. Although such results may suggest similar finding for LSSSE, no such survey has yet been administered for the LSSSE project. We would like to note, however, that institutional response rates for LSSSE have been quite robust: consistently above the 50% mark, with some institutions reporting response rates of up to 80%.