Using Cluster Analysis for Peer Selection - University Analysis and ...

32
K-means Comparison Table
• University of Central Florida
28/12/non 28/12/alpha 28/13/alpha 28/13/non 28/21/alpha 28/21/non Sum
• University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 8 7 7 7 7 7 43
• University of Nevada at Las Vegas 7 6 7 7 7 7 41
• Florida International University 8 7 7 7 5 6 40
• University of North Carolina at Charlotte 8 7 7 7 5 6 40
• Florida Atlantic University 7 6 7 7 6 6 39
• Old Dominion University 7 6 6 5 6 6 36
• Portland State University 7 6 6 5 6 6 36
• University of Texas-Arlington 7 6 6 5 6 6 36
• University of Missouri at St. Louis 6 5 6 6 6 6 35
• Cleveland State University 7 5 5 4 6 6 33
• Kent State University 5 5 5 6 5 5 31
• San Diego State University 6 5 5 6 5 3 30
• Western Michigan University 5 5 5 6 4 3 28
• University of North Texas 5 5 5 6 3 3 27
• Wright St. University 5 5 4 4 3 3 24
• George Mason University 4 4 4 4 2 2 20
• State University of New York, Albany 4 3 4 4 3 2 20
• Georgia State University 4 4 4 4 1 2 19
• University of Louisville 2 3 3 2 4 3 17
• Indiana University – Purdue University 2 3 2 2 3 2 14
• Virginia Commonwealth University 2 3 2 2 1 1 11
• University of South Florida 2 2 1 1 2 2 10
• Wayne State University 0 0 1 0 2 1 4
• University of Alabama at Birmingham 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
• University of Delaware 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
• North Carolina State University 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
• University of Cincinnati – Main Campus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Using Cluster Analysis in Peer Selection
October 15, 2002