以测试为基础的技能不匹配测量:利用 NEPS 验证五种不同的测量方法

IF 1.6 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Stephan Bischof
{"title":"以测试为基础的技能不匹配测量:利用 NEPS 验证五种不同的测量方法","authors":"Stephan Bischof","doi":"10.1186/s12651-024-00370-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Skill mismatch is a key indicator of labour market research that has received significant attention. To date, various approaches of test-based measurement of skill mismatch have been used in research, generating differing results. However, it remains unclear which method is the most valid for measuring skill mismatch. This study provides a comparative validation of five commonly used approaches to test-based measurement of skill mismatches in reading and mathematics to detect the most valid method. Drawing on the 2016 wave of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) Adult Cohort, I find significantly varying distributions for the different measurement approaches, and highly valid skill mismatch measures for the statistical and the mixed approach. Overall, the mixed approach emerges as the most valid method. The findings highlight the critical importance of measurement approaches in skill mismatch research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45469,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Labour Market Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test-based measurement of skill mismatch: a validation of five different measurement approaches using the NEPS\",\"authors\":\"Stephan Bischof\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12651-024-00370-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Skill mismatch is a key indicator of labour market research that has received significant attention. To date, various approaches of test-based measurement of skill mismatch have been used in research, generating differing results. However, it remains unclear which method is the most valid for measuring skill mismatch. This study provides a comparative validation of five commonly used approaches to test-based measurement of skill mismatches in reading and mathematics to detect the most valid method. Drawing on the 2016 wave of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) Adult Cohort, I find significantly varying distributions for the different measurement approaches, and highly valid skill mismatch measures for the statistical and the mixed approach. Overall, the mixed approach emerges as the most valid method. The findings highlight the critical importance of measurement approaches in skill mismatch research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Labour Market Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Labour Market Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-024-00370-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Labour Market Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-024-00370-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技能错配是劳动力市场研究中的一个关键指标,受到了广泛关注。迄今为止,研究中使用了各种基于测试的技能错配测量方法,产生了不同的结果。然而,目前仍不清楚哪种方法对测量技能错配最有效。本研究对五种常用的基于测试的阅读和数学技能错位测量方法进行了比较验证,以发现最有效的方法。根据 2016 年德国国家教育面板研究(NEPS)成人队列的数据,我发现不同测量方法的分布有显著差异,统计法和混合法的技能错配测量结果非常有效。总体而言,混合法是最有效的方法。研究结果凸显了技能错配研究中测量方法的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Test-based measurement of skill mismatch: a validation of five different measurement approaches using the NEPS

Test-based measurement of skill mismatch: a validation of five different measurement approaches using the NEPS

Skill mismatch is a key indicator of labour market research that has received significant attention. To date, various approaches of test-based measurement of skill mismatch have been used in research, generating differing results. However, it remains unclear which method is the most valid for measuring skill mismatch. This study provides a comparative validation of five commonly used approaches to test-based measurement of skill mismatches in reading and mathematics to detect the most valid method. Drawing on the 2016 wave of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) Adult Cohort, I find significantly varying distributions for the different measurement approaches, and highly valid skill mismatch measures for the statistical and the mixed approach. Overall, the mixed approach emerges as the most valid method. The findings highlight the critical importance of measurement approaches in skill mismatch research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Labour Market Research
Journal for Labour Market Research INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal for Labour Market Research is a journal in the interdisciplinary field of labour market research. As of 2016 the Journal publishes Open Access. The journal follows international research standards and strives for international visibility. With its empirical and multidisciplinary orientation, the journal publishes papers in English language concerning the labour market, employment, education / training and careers. Papers dealing with country-specific labour market aspects are suitable if they adopt an innovative approach and address a topic of interest to a wider international audience. The journal is distinct from most others in the field, as it provides a platform for contributions from a broad range of academic disciplines. The editors encourage replication studies, as well as studies based on international comparisons. Accordingly, authors are expected to make their empirical data available to readers who might wish to replicate a published work on request. Submitted papers, who have passed a prescreening process by the editors, are generally reviewed by two peer reviewers, who remain anonymous for the author. In addition to the regular issues, special issues covering selected topics are published at least once a year. As of April 2015 the Journal for Labour Market Research has a "No Revisions" option for submissions (see ‘Instructions for Authors’).
×
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