Teacher-centered analysis with TIMSS and PIRLS data: weighting approaches, accuracy, and precision

IF 2.6 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Shelby J. Haberman, Sabine Meinck, Ann-Kristin Koop
{"title":"Teacher-centered analysis with TIMSS and PIRLS data: weighting approaches, accuracy, and precision","authors":"Shelby J. Haberman, Sabine Meinck, Ann-Kristin Koop","doi":"10.1186/s40536-024-00214-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper extends existing work on teacher weighting in student-centered surveys by looking into aspects of practical implementation of deriving and using weights for teacher-centered analysis in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). The formal conditions to compute teacher-centered weights are detailed, including mathematical equations. We provide a proposal on how to define the targeted populations as well as how to collect data that is needed to derive teacher-centered weights, yet currently unavailable. We also tackle the issue of teacher nonresponse by proposing a respective adjustment factor, as well as mentioning the challenge of multiple selection probabilities when teachers teach in multiple schools. The core part of the paper focuses on studying the level of accuracy that can be expected when estimating teacher population characteristics. We use TIMSS 2019 data and simulate likely scenarios regarding the variance in weights. The results show that (i) the different weighting scenarios lead to relatively similar estimates; however, the differences between the scenarios are sufficient to justify the recommendation to use correctly derived teacher weights; (ii) differences between estimated standard errors based on complex sampling and corresponding estimates based on simple random sampling are sufficiently consistent to support use of a procedure to estimate standard errors that accounts for both sample weights and the complex sampling design; (iii) sample sizes and variance in weights significantly limit estimate precision, so that total population estimates with sufficient precision are available in the majority of countries but subpopulation features are generally not sufficiently precise. To provide a critical evaluation of our results, we recommend implementation of the proposed method in one or more countries. This recommended study will permit examination of logistical considerations in implementation of required changes in data acquisition and will provide data to replicate the analysis with teacher-centered weights.</p>","PeriodicalId":37009,"journal":{"name":"Large-Scale Assessments in Education","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Large-Scale Assessments in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-024-00214-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper extends existing work on teacher weighting in student-centered surveys by looking into aspects of practical implementation of deriving and using weights for teacher-centered analysis in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). The formal conditions to compute teacher-centered weights are detailed, including mathematical equations. We provide a proposal on how to define the targeted populations as well as how to collect data that is needed to derive teacher-centered weights, yet currently unavailable. We also tackle the issue of teacher nonresponse by proposing a respective adjustment factor, as well as mentioning the challenge of multiple selection probabilities when teachers teach in multiple schools. The core part of the paper focuses on studying the level of accuracy that can be expected when estimating teacher population characteristics. We use TIMSS 2019 data and simulate likely scenarios regarding the variance in weights. The results show that (i) the different weighting scenarios lead to relatively similar estimates; however, the differences between the scenarios are sufficient to justify the recommendation to use correctly derived teacher weights; (ii) differences between estimated standard errors based on complex sampling and corresponding estimates based on simple random sampling are sufficiently consistent to support use of a procedure to estimate standard errors that accounts for both sample weights and the complex sampling design; (iii) sample sizes and variance in weights significantly limit estimate precision, so that total population estimates with sufficient precision are available in the majority of countries but subpopulation features are generally not sufficiently precise. To provide a critical evaluation of our results, we recommend implementation of the proposed method in one or more countries. This recommended study will permit examination of logistical considerations in implementation of required changes in data acquisition and will provide data to replicate the analysis with teacher-centered weights.

Abstract Image

以教师为中心的 TIMSS 和 PIRLS 数据分析:加权方法、准确性和精确性
本文对以学生为中心的调查中教师权重的现有工作进行了扩展,研究了在国际数学与科学趋势研究(TIMSS)和国际阅读能力进展研究(PIRLS)中推导和使用权重进行以教师为中心的分析的实际实施方面。我们详细介绍了计算以教师为中心的权重的正式条件,包括数学公式。我们就如何界定目标人群以及如何收集推导以教师为中心的权重所需的数据提出了建议,但这些数据目前还无法获得。我们还通过提出相应的调整系数来解决教师无响应的问题,并提到当教师在多所学校任教时,多重选择概率所带来的挑战。本文的核心部分侧重于研究估计教师群体特征时的预期准确度。我们使用 TIMSS 2019 数据,模拟了权重差异的可能情况。结果表明:(i) 不同的加权方案导致了相对相似的估计结果;然而,方案之间的差异足以证明使用正确推导的教师权重的建议是合理的;(ii) 基于复杂抽样的估计标准误差与基于简单随机抽样的相应估计值之间的差异足够一致,以支持使用一种既考虑样本权重又考虑复杂抽样设计的程序来估计标准误差;(iii) 样本规模和权重差异极大地限制了估计精度,因此,在大多数国家可以获得具有足够精度的总体估计值,但子总体特征一般不够精确。为了对我们的结果进行严格评估,我们建议在一个或多个国家实施所建议的方法。这项建议的研究将允许对实施数据获取所需的变化时的后勤考虑因素进行审查,并将提供数据以重复以教师为中心的权重分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Large-Scale Assessments in Education
Large-Scale Assessments in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
16
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信