Many institutions have turned to individualized holistic review to make admissions decisions, which is meant to take a comprehensive view of the quantitative and qualitative elements that comprise a single application. Prior research shows holistic review lacks a common definition and the gap between theory and practice has not been thoroughly addressed, particularly at institutions with high application volume. This study explored how the presence of holistic review components such as standardized test scores and contextual data affect first-time-in-college (FTIC) admission decisions at a large selective public institution. Additionally, it addressed the question of how holistic review can be more efficiently implemented. This study used a mixed-methods approach: a randomized controlled experiment followed by a think-aloud protocol. The main implications for practitioners based on the experimental results are that there were no significant decision differences between applications that included test scores but there were significant group differences in application review time. The shortest review time for applications that only presented test scores within the high school and neighborhood contextual data. Additionally, the overall average application review time was only two minutes. Results from the think-aloud protocol showed that participants did notice when application components were missing. High school transcripts were the most viewed and discussed, whereas test scores were more often overruled by other application components. Contextual information accounted for 30% of the shifts in cognitive decision-making. A qualitative content analysis of the think-aloud protocol showed three primary themes: context (external control), review (admissions staff control), and student effort (applicant control). Additional findings on the definition of holistic review and how it can be more feasibly implemented were also discussed. The results from this exploratory study identify many avenues for more future targeted research on holistic review that can help increase transparency and close the gap between theory and practice. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]