LSAT Technical Reports

Summary of 2017, 2018, and 2019 LSAT Correlation Study Results

Since the inception of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has sought to evaluate and ensure its validity for use in the law school admission process. As predictive validity is an important component in the overall evaluation of test validity, LSAC has carried out predictive validity studies, also called LSAT Correlation Studies, since the test was first administered. The LSAT Correlation Studies evaluate the effectiveness of LSAT scores, undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), and the combination of LSAT scores and UGPA for predicting a student’s first-year average (FYA) in law school. This report provides summaries of the combined results for the law schools participating in the  2017, 2018 and 2019  LSAT Correlation Studies. These results serve to document and support the strong predictive validity of LSAT scores for use in the law school admission process. These findings are consistent with all prior reports in showing that LSAT scores are a better predictor of law school performance compared to UGPAs, and that the combination of LSAT scores and UGPA continues to be the best predictor of FYA.

Additional reports in this collection

LSAT Performance With Regional, Gender, and Racial and Ethnic Breakdowns: 2011–2012 Through 2017–2018 Testing Years (TR 22-01)

The purpose of this report is to provide summary information about Law School Admission Test (LSAT) performance, including performance classified by country, region of the United States, gender only, race and ethnicity only, and both gender and race and ethnicity. Information regarding LSAT performance is summarized for the 2011–2012 through 2017–2018 testing years and compiled into a single report, enabling trends with regard to the performance and representation of various subgroups to be examined.

Summary of Self-Reported Methods of Test Preparation...

This investigation of Law School Admission Test (LSAT) preparation patterns for the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018 testing years represents a replication of earlier studies, with an additional testing year (i.e., the earlier studies spanned three administrations, whereas the present study spans four). From a list of nine possible test-preparation methods on the answer sheet, test takers were asked to voluntarily select the method(s) they had used to help them prepare for the test.