Linking Errors between Two Populations and Tests: A Case Study in International Surveys in Education.

Q2 Social Sciences
D. Hastedt, Deana Desa
{"title":"Linking Errors between Two Populations and Tests: A Case Study in International Surveys in Education.","authors":"D. Hastedt, Deana Desa","doi":"10.7275/YK4S-0A49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This simulation study was prompted by the current increased interest in linking national studies to international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) such as IEA’s TIMSS, IEA’s PIRLS, and OECD’s PISA. Linkage in this scenario is achieved by including items from the international assessments in the national assessments on the premise that the average achievement scores from the latter can be linked to the international metric. In addition to raising issues associated with different testing conditions, administrative procedures, and the like, this approach also poses psychometric challenges. This paper endeavors to shed some light on the effects that can be expected, the linkage errors in particular, by countries using this practice. The ILSA selected for this simulation study was IEA TIMSS 2011, and the three countries used as the national assessment cases were Botswana, Honduras, and Tunisia, all of which participated in TIMSS 2011. The items selected as items common to the simulated national tests and the international test came from the Grade 4 TIMSS 2011 mathematics items that IEA released into the public domain after completion of this assessment. The findings of the current study show that linkage errors seemed to achieve acceptable levels if 30 or more items were used for the linkage, although the errors were still significantly higher compared to the TIMSS’ cutoffs. Comparison of the estimated country averages based on the simulated national surveys and the averages based on the international TIMSS assessment revealed only one instance across the three countries of the estimates approaching parity. Also, the percentages of students in these countries who actually reached the defined benchmarks on the TIMSS achievement scale differed significantly from the results based on TIMSS and the results for the simulated national assessments. As a conclusion, we advise against using groups of released items from international assessments in national assessments in order to link the results of the former to the latter.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/YK4S-0A49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This simulation study was prompted by the current increased interest in linking national studies to international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) such as IEA’s TIMSS, IEA’s PIRLS, and OECD’s PISA. Linkage in this scenario is achieved by including items from the international assessments in the national assessments on the premise that the average achievement scores from the latter can be linked to the international metric. In addition to raising issues associated with different testing conditions, administrative procedures, and the like, this approach also poses psychometric challenges. This paper endeavors to shed some light on the effects that can be expected, the linkage errors in particular, by countries using this practice. The ILSA selected for this simulation study was IEA TIMSS 2011, and the three countries used as the national assessment cases were Botswana, Honduras, and Tunisia, all of which participated in TIMSS 2011. The items selected as items common to the simulated national tests and the international test came from the Grade 4 TIMSS 2011 mathematics items that IEA released into the public domain after completion of this assessment. The findings of the current study show that linkage errors seemed to achieve acceptable levels if 30 or more items were used for the linkage, although the errors were still significantly higher compared to the TIMSS’ cutoffs. Comparison of the estimated country averages based on the simulated national surveys and the averages based on the international TIMSS assessment revealed only one instance across the three countries of the estimates approaching parity. Also, the percentages of students in these countries who actually reached the defined benchmarks on the TIMSS achievement scale differed significantly from the results based on TIMSS and the results for the simulated national assessments. As a conclusion, we advise against using groups of released items from international assessments in national assessments in order to link the results of the former to the latter.
两个群体和测试之间的错误联系:国际教育调查的案例研究。
这项模拟研究是由于目前人们对将国家研究与国际大规模评估(ilsa)联系起来的兴趣日益增加,例如国际能源署的TIMSS、国际能源署的PIRLS和经合组织的PISA。这种情况下的联系是通过在国家评估中包括国际评估的项目来实现的,前提是后者的平均成绩分数可以与国际指标联系起来。除了提出与不同测试条件、管理程序等相关的问题外,这种方法还带来了心理测量学方面的挑战。本文试图阐明使用这种做法的国家可能预期的影响,特别是联系误差。本次模拟研究选择的ILSA是IEA TIMSS 2011,作为国家评估案例的三个国家是博茨瓦纳、洪都拉斯和突尼斯,这三个国家都参加了TIMSS 2011。本次模拟国家测试和国际测试中所选择的共同项目来自于国际能源署在本次评估完成后对外发布的TIMSS 2011年四级数学项目。目前的研究结果表明,如果使用30个或更多的项目进行联系,联系误差似乎达到了可接受的水平,尽管与TIMSS的截止值相比,错误仍然明显更高。根据模拟国家调查估计的国家平均值与根据国际TIMSS评估估计的平均值的比较显示,三个国家中只有一个估计数接近等值的情况。此外,在这些国家中,实际达到TIMSS成就量表定义基准的学生百分比与基于TIMSS的结果和模拟国家评估的结果有很大不同。作为结论,我们建议不要在国家评估中使用国际评估中公布的项目组,以便将前者的结果与后者联系起来。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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