Thesis advisor: Henry I. Braun / Addressing the call to provide hard evidence on undergraduate student outcomes and make comparisons across higher education institutions for accountability purposes, this study extends current efforts in measuring higher education outcomes and explores the differences in three value-added methodologies. Using the CIRP freshman and senior survey data from 2002 and 2006, this study examines noncognitive higher education outcomes with a focus on civic engagement. The three value-added methodologies examined are: an OLS-based cross-sectional method, an HLM-based cross-sectional method, and an HLM-based longitudinal method. Rather than seek to establish which methodology is superior, this study intends to provide empirical evidence concerning the similarities and differences in estimating institutional effectiveness with regard to civic engagement. First, several student-level and institution-level covariates were found to be associated with a measure of civic engagement in the senior year after adjusting for their level of civic engagement as freshmen. The model comparison further revealed some advantages in the HLM-based longitudinal method over the other two methods, such as providing a more accurate institutional value-added estimate and the ability to account for a relatively large percent of the total variance in the civic engagement measure when using the same covariates. Next, among all pairs of model comparisons, results from the two HLM-based methods agreed the most (r=.80). However, institutional rankings fluctuate dramatically, even when comparing institutions within small peer groups. Finally, the findings highlighted great divergences among different value-added methodologies in identifying institutions that perform significantly differently from the average for accountability purposes. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2012. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation.