Test preparation statistics show that ACT students used several different approaches, with self-paced materials more common than formal instruction in the February 2016 administration. The ACT Research & Policy brief also found that preparation patterns varied by family income, gender, race, and coursework. Its score figures are regression coefficients, not guaranteed individual gains.
Contents
- How ACT students prepared
- Preparation formats
- Family income and choices
- Gender and race differences
- Coursework and preparation
- Preparation and ACT Composite scores
How ACT students prepared
The preparation percentages below come from students asked about preparation for the February 6, 2016 ACT administration. The technical brief was published in November 2020. Because students could report different activities, these figures describe reported activity types rather than a single mutually exclusive ranking of study methods.
The most frequently reported specific activity was self-paced paper preparation, such as workbooks, used by 33.1% of surveyed ACT students. Self-paced online ACT-content review, excluding online videos, was reported by 12.7%, while 7.1% used online videos for self-paced ACT-content review. Together, these figures show the prominence of independent preparation, although they should not be added as a unique-student total.
Instructor-led options were reported at lower individual rates. In-person one-on-one tutoring was used by 11.8% of surveyed students, and in-person large-group instruction with six or more students by 11.2%. In-person small-group instruction with fewer than six students reached 5.9%.
Online instruction was less common in each listed format: 1.4% used online large-group instruction, 1.2% used live online one-on-one tutoring, and 0.7% used online small-group instruction with fewer than six students. Only practice assessments, including practice tests, drills, or quizzes, were reported by 2.9%. Another type of ACT test-preparation activity was reported by 18.0%, while 15.8% reported no ACT test-preparation activity.
These activity percentages are from the ACT brief, What Preparation Works to Improve ACT Scores?, and retain the source’s measurement period and definitions.
For readers comparing study plans, the practical distinction in these statistics is format rather than a claim that one method is universally best. Paper workbooks, online review, videos, tutoring, group instruction, and practice assessments appear as separate reported activities. The broad categories later in the brief are designed for analysis, so they provide a consistent way to compare subgroups without turning every activity response into a separate outcome claim.
Preparation formats
For its broader analysis, the brief grouped overlapping activity responses into four categories. In the weighted analytic sample, 27.5% were categorized as using self-paced ACT preparation. In-person ACT preparation accounted for 21.4%, other ACT preparation for 23.8%, and no ACT preparation for 27.4%.
| Broad preparation category | Share of weighted analytic sample |
|---|---|
| Self-paced ACT preparation | 27.5% |
| No ACT preparation | 27.4% |
| Other ACT preparation | 23.8% |
| In-person ACT preparation | 21.4% |
The broad categories are not interchangeable with the individual activity percentages above. The study grouped overlapping responses for regression analysis, so a reader should use the first set to understand reported activities and this table to understand the study’s analytic categories. The weighted analytic sample also means these percentages reflect the brief’s weighting approach, not an unweighted count presented here.
Family income and choices
Family income was associated with different reported preparation patterns in the weighted analytic sample. Among students with family income below $36,000, 13.7% used in-person ACT instruction, 31.1% used self-paced preparation, 27.7% used other preparation, and 27.5% used no ACT preparation.
Among students with family income from $36,000 to $100,000, 13.3% used in-person instruction. Self-paced preparation accounted for 30.9%, other preparation for 24.3%, and no preparation for 31.6%.
The high-income group, defined in the brief as family income above $100,000, reported a different balance. In-person ACT instruction was reported by 28.3%, self-paced preparation by 25.6%, other preparation by 19.2%, and no preparation by 26.9%.
| Family income group | In-person | Self-paced | Other | None |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Below $36,000 | 13.7% | 31.1% | 27.7% | 27.5% |
| $36,000–$100,000 | 13.3% | 30.9% | 24.3% | 31.6% |
| Above $100,000 | 28.3% | 25.6% | 19.2% | 26.9% |
The largest visible difference in these reported categories is in-person instruction: 28.3% for the above-$100,000 group compared with 13.7% for the below-$36,000 group. These are descriptive subgroup percentages from the ACT sample, not evidence that income itself caused a particular preparation choice.
Gender and race differences
Female ACT examinees reported in-person instruction at a rate of 19.5%, self-paced preparation at 28.2%, other preparation at 24.8%, and no preparation at 27.5%. Male ACT examinees reported in-person instruction at 23.8%, self-paced preparation at 26.5%, other preparation at 22.3%, and no preparation at 27.4%.
The race-group figures supplied by the brief cover in-person instruction. White ACT examinees reported in-person instruction at 23.3%. The corresponding rate was 20.4% among African American ACT examinees, 17.2% among Hispanic ACT examinees, and 18.2% among Asian ACT examinees.
These percentages describe the ACT examinees and subgroup definitions used by the November 2020 technical brief. They do not provide a complete measure of every preparation activity for each race group in the supplied results, and they should not be read as individual predictions.
Coursework and preparation
Academic coursework was another reported characteristic associated with preparation patterns. Among students taking a college-preparatory curriculum, 24.1% used in-person ACT instruction, 25.9% used self-paced preparation, 22.8% used other preparation, and 27.1% used no ACT preparation.
Among students not taking a college-preparatory curriculum, 16.7% used in-person instruction, 30.0% used self-paced preparation, 25.4% used other preparation, and 27.9% used no preparation.
The difference between the two coursework groups was most pronounced in the reported in-person category: 24.1% among students taking a college-preparatory curriculum versus 16.7% among those not taking one. Self-paced preparation was reported by 25.9% of the college-preparatory group and 30.0% of the non-college-preparatory group. These figures describe preparation patterns alongside coursework status; they do not establish that curriculum type produced the difference.
Preparation and ACT Composite scores
The brief also reported regression coefficients for ACT Composite scores. These values estimate associations in the model and are measured in ACT Composite points. They are not guaranteed score gains for an individual student, and the source notes that the findings should not be interpreted as causal advice.
For the total group, the coefficient for in-person instruction was 0.1 ACT Composite points. The corresponding coefficient was -0.4 points for the low-income group, 0.1 points for the middle-income group, and 0.5 points for the high-income group.
The self-paced preparation coefficient was -0.2 points for the total group. By income group, it was -0.5 points for the low-income group, -0.2 points for the middle-income group, and -0.1 points for the high-income group.
For other preparation, the coefficient was -0.1 points for the total group, -0.3 points for the low-income group, -0.3 points for the middle-income group, and 0.0 points for the high-income group.
| Preparation category | Total | Low income | Middle income | High income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-person instruction | 0.1 | -0.4 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
| Self-paced preparation | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.2 | -0.1 |
| Other preparation | -0.1 | -0.3 | -0.3 | 0.0 |
The regression results should be considered together with the study design. Preparation choices were self-reported, the activity responses could overlap, and the figures come from students associated with the February 2016 ACT administration. The source is an ACT Research & Policy technical brief published in November 2020, so the results describe that ACT sample and measurement period rather than all test takers or every current testing environment. They are useful for understanding historical patterns in test preparation, while leaving individual outcomes dependent on factors not quantified in these results.