This article presents a new measure of curricular intensity that is objective, parsimonious, clearly defined, replicable, and comparable over time for use by researchers interested in examining trends, causes, and outcomes of high school course taking. After proposing a reduced-form version of Adelman’s curricular intensity index comprised of number of courses completed in English and core science, highest math course completed, and whether students took at least one Advanced Placement course, I test the measure in four National Center for Education Statistics high school longitudinal studies using confirmatory factor analysis. I examine the methodological implications of the measure by conducting multigroup tests for invariance across cohorts to understand how curricular intensity changes over time and comparing the measure’s predictive validity to that of alternative measures of course taking. I then examine substantive implications of the measure through analysis of trends and inequalities in curricular intensity. The four course-taking variables combined create a strong measure of curricular intensity across cohorts that performs as well as or better than Adelman’s index in explaining variance in postsecondary outcomes and predicting postsecondary success. The measure accounts for shifts over time in the relative contribution of each course-taking variable to overall curricular intensity, facilitating more accurate comparisons across cohorts or data sets. I provide practical guidance for using the measure in other data sets, including state- and district-level data, to analyze overall trends and gaps in curricular intensity and its role in postsecondary success, and I discuss some potential uses of the measure for future research and policy.

中文翻译：

---

测量三个世纪的高中课程强度

本文提出了一种新的课程强度测量方法，该测量方法是客观，简约，清晰定义，可复制且具有可比性的，可以供有兴趣研究高中课程趋势，原因和结果的研究人员使用。在提出一个简化形式的阿德尔曼课程强度指数后，该强度指数包括英语和核心科学课程的完成数量，数学课程的最高完成率以及学生是否至少参加了一门高级选修课程，然后我在四个国家教育中心测试了该指标使用验证性因子分析对高中纵向研究进行统计。我通过对不同人群进行不变性的多组检验来了解该方法的方法学含义，以了解课程强度随时间变化的情况，并将该方法的预测有效性与其他课程选择方法的预测有效性进行比较。然后，我通过分析课程强度的趋势和不平等现象来检验该措施的实质含义。四个选修课的变量相结合，构成了一个强有力的衡量整个班级课程强度的指标，在​​解释中学后成果的差异和预测中学后成功方面，其表现优于或优于阿德尔曼指数。该方法考虑了每个选课变量对总课程强度的相对贡献随时间的变化，从而有助于更准确地比较同类群组或数据集。