ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

As a consequence, and after effort had been made to control for ability, the CIVED studentshad a higher probability than the ICCS students of giving correct answers to items that hadbeen administered at the beginning. However, the CIVED students were less likely to knowthe answers to test questions administered toward the end of the assessment. This effect was,however, not very strong for the pooled international samples and was notable in only a fewcountries.Given that the framework for the test domain was broader in ICCS than in CIVID and giventhat the majority of the link items represented only one content domain (civic systems andsociety), it was not surprising to find in the preliminary analysis some notable differences in thebehavior of the CIVED link items and the new ICCS items. Effort to estimate comparable ICCStest scores using the newly established scale for the CIVED data was not deemed appropriate.A decision was made to test an approach that involved using different equating methods to settest data for the link items (with reduced sample size, given these items appeared in only threeout of the seven ICCS booklets) against the CIVED scale metric. However, comparisons of thedifferences in percentages correct for both surveys and the resulting trend estimates showedseveral inconsistencies that were probably a consequence of the set of link items including onlytwo items from the subdimension “interpretative skills.” It was therefore decided to report onlychanges pertaining to the “civic content knowledge” subscale, for which 15 link items wereavailable.In order to review the link item characteristics, the adjusted item difficulty parameters (eachstandardized to have a mean of 0) were compared first at the international level and then foreach national sample. Figure 11.6 shows the scatterplot between the item parameters fromCIVED and those estimated for the trend sample consisting of 500 randomly selected studentsfrom each of the national samples with comparable data. As is apparent in the figure, five itemswere slightly outside the error bands derived from the respective standard errors of the itemparameters from both calibrations. However, the figure also shows that the item parameterswere generally highly similar; the correlation between item parameters was 0.96.As was the case for the international scaling, some national items had to be omitted fromscaling. These items included those that were excluded from the CIVED scaling (see Schulz& Sibberns, 2004), ICCS versions of items with translation errors or deviations, items thatreflected printing problems, and items that showed very large differences in relative itemdifficulty between the two surveys. Table 11.11 shows the national items that were excludedfrom the equating procedures for ICCS data as well as the reasons for their exclusion.For the final scaling, maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) were derived using the same itemparameters as in CIVED. They were then transformed to the same scale metric, which wasset to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 20 for the 28 CIVED countries. Thetransformation of scale scores was computed by applying this formula:q n ’=100+20 q n–qs q .Here, q n ’ are the student scores in the CIVED metric, q n are the original logit scores (maximumlikelihood estimates), q is the CIVED mean of student logit scores (0.95) with equally weightedcountry subsamples, and s qis its corresponding CIVED standard deviation (1.36). Table11.12 shows the item parameters used for scaling as well as the average percentages of correctresponses for these items in the 17 countries in 2009 and 1999.SCALING PROCEDURES FOR ICCS TEST ITEMS149
Figure 11.6: Scatterplot for link item parameter estimates from CIVED and for the ICCS trend sample3.02.52.01.51.00.5CIVED0.0-0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0-2.5-3.0-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0ICCSTable 11.11: National items excluded from the ICCS equating proceduresCountry Item ReasonBulgaria CI110M1 Translation error in ICCSBulgaria CI120M1 Not used in CIVED scalingSwitzerland (German version) CI121M1 Translation error in ICCSSwitzerland (German version) CI129M1 Translation error in ICCSEstonia CI101M1 Translation error in ICCSEstonia (Russian version) CI113M1 Incorrect translation in CIVEDEstonia CI121M1 Not used in CIVED scalingEstonia (Russian version) CI128M1 Translation error in CIVEDEstonia (Russian version) CI129M1 Translation error in CIVEDFinland CI127M1 Not used in CIVED scalingLithuania (Lithuanian version) CI110M1 Printing problem in ICCSSlovak Republic CI110M1 Different translation used in ICCSRepublic CI120M1 Different translation used in ICCSSlovenia CI127M1 Not used in CIVED scalingSweden CI106M1 Large difference in relative item difficultySweden CI121M1 Not used in CIVED scaling150ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 5 and 6:
School sampling design 63Within-sch
Page 7 and 8:
6ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 9 and 10:
Table 9.9: Numbers of NRC responses
Page 11 and 12:
Table 12.37: Item parameters for sc
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 12.7: Confirmatory factor an
Page 15 and 16:
Table B.21.1: Allocation of student
Page 17 and 18:
ICCS collected data from more than
Page 19 and 20:
• A 30-minute school questionnair
Page 21 and 22:
ReferencesAmadeo, J., Torney-Purta,
Page 23 and 24:
Table 2.1: Test development process
Page 25 and 26:
PanelingPaneling is a team-based ap
Page 27 and 28:
Development of constructed-response
Page 29 and 30:
Table 2.6: Field trial item mapping
Page 31 and 32:
Released test itemsTwo clusters of
Page 33 and 34:
32 ICCS 2009 technical report
Page 35 and 36:
• Civic identities, comprising tw
Page 37 and 38:
The context of the wider community
Page 39 and 40:
The international options offered t
Page 41 and 42:
Some of the constructs measured thr
Page 43 and 44:
Discussion with national centers an
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
was that the test would focus on kn
Page 49 and 50:
Asian questionnaire developmentThe
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Of these, the survey instruments (c
Page 55 and 56:
Adaptation of the instrumentsIn the
Page 57 and 58:
International translation verifiers
Page 59 and 60:
Quality control monitor reviewIEA h
Page 61 and 62:
Teacher target populationICCS defin
Page 63 and 64:
Table 6.1: Population coverage and
Page 65 and 66:
Table 6.2: School, student, and tea
Page 67 and 68:
The team next selected a sample fro
Page 69 and 70:
Systematic sampling was used for se
Page 71 and 72:
In a small number of countries, the
Page 73 and 74:
Class non-response adjustment (WGTA
Page 75 and 76:
Teacher non-response adjustment (WG
Page 77 and 78:
Calculating participation ratesFor
Page 79 and 80:
Table 7.1: Unweighted participation
Page 81 and 82:
The unweighted overall participatio
Page 83 and 84:
Table 7.4: Weighted participation r
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7.5: Categories into which co
Page 87 and 88:
Table 7.7: Participation by country
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
• The School Sampling Manual (ICC
Page 93 and 94:
School coordinators were required t
Page 95 and 96:
For countries administering the sch
Page 97 and 98:
Scoring the ICCS assessmentThe succ
Page 99 and 100: Quality control throughout the data
Page 101 and 102: Table 8.3: Weighted percentages of
Page 103 and 104: ICCS International Study Center (20
Page 105 and 106: They received an overview of the st
Page 107 and 108: Survey administration activities du
Page 109 and 110: Table 9.3: Percentages of IQCM resp
Page 115 and 116: Table 9.9: Numbers of NRC responses
Page 117 and 118: Table 9.12: Numbers of NRC response
Page 119 and 120: The majority of countries used the
Page 121 and 122: ReferencesICCS International Study
Page 123 and 124: After the item-statistics review ha
Page 125 and 126: Documentation and structure checkFo
Page 127 and 128: Filter questions, which appeared in
Page 129 and 130: SummaryTo achieve a high standard o
Page 131 and 132: Test coverage and item dimensionali
Page 133 and 134: Table 11.1: Item total-score correl
Page 135 and 136: Assessment of scorer reliabilitiesT
Page 137 and 138: Table 11.3: Gender DIF estimates fo
Page 139 and 140: Table 11.4 shows the percentages of
Page 141 and 142: fell below 70 percent were removed.
Page 143 and 144: Table 11.6: National items excluded
Page 145 and 146: Table 11.7: Final item parameters u
Page 147 and 148: Table 11.9: Median test reliabiliti
Page 149: The approach chosen was essentially
Page 153 and 154: Here, s 2 represents the variance o
Page 155 and 156: Table 11.15: Reliabilities for Euro
Page 157 and 158: ReferencesAdams, R. (2002). Scaling
Page 159 and 160: their parents’ levels of educatio
Page 161 and 162: Teacher questionnaireIndividual tea
Page 163 and 164: In the case of items with more than
Page 165 and 166: Figure 12.1: Summed category probab
Page 167 and 168: Table 12.1: Reliabilities for scale
Page 169 and 170: Figure 12.3: Confirmatory factor an
Page 171 and 172: Table 12.4: Item parameters for sca
Page 179 and 180: Table 12.9: Reliabilities for scale
Page 183 and 184: Table 12.12: Item parameters for sc
Page 185 and 186: Students’ attitudes toward instit
Page 189 and 190: Table 12.16: Item parameters for sc
Page 191 and 192: Table 12.17: Reliabilities for scal
Page 195 and 196: Table 12.21: Factor loadings and re
Page 201 and 202:
In Question 19, teachers were asked
Page 203 and 204:
Table 12.26: Reliabilities for scal
Page 205 and 206:
Figure 12.15: Confirmatory factor a
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Teachers’ reports of teaching civ
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
School questionnairePrincipals’ r
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Principals’ reports on the local
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Principals’ reports on school cli
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Figure 12.24 shows the results of t
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
All of the items associated with Qu
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Figure 12.28 shows the results of t
Page 245 and 246:
In Question 4, students were asked
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Question 4 asked students to rate t
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Students’ perceptions of public s
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Table 13.1: Numbers of sampling zon
Page 265 and 266:
Table 13.2: Example of computation
Page 267 and 268:
Table 13.3: National averages for c
Page 269 and 270:
The ICCS international report also
Page 271 and 272:
The software package HLM 6.08 (Raud
Page 273 and 274:
Table 13.4: Coefficients of missing
Page 275 and 276:
During the multiple regression anal
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
SummaryThe jackknife repeated repli
Page 283 and 284:
Staff at the IEA Data Processing an
Page 285 and 286:
Republic of KoreaTae-Jun KimKorean
Page 287 and 288:
Appendix B: Characteristics of nati
Page 289 and 290:
Table B.3: Allocation of student sa
Page 291 and 292:
B.6. Colombia• Night schools, wee
Page 293 and 294:
Table B.8.2: Allocation of teacher
Page 295 and 296:
B.12. Estonia• Schools for adults
Page 297 and 298:
B.14. Greece• Night schools and s
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
B.20. Korea• Special education sc
Page 303 and 304:
B.23. Lithuania• Special needs sc
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Table B.29.1: Allocation of student
Page 309 and 310:
Table B.32: Allocation of student s
Page 311 and 312:
B.34. Slovenia• Dislocated units
Page 313 and 314:
B.36. Sweden• Special needs schoo
Page 315 and 316:
B.38. Thailand• Special education
Page 317 and 318:
Table C1: Descriptions of cognitive
Page 319 and 320:
Table C1: Descriptions of cognitive
Page 321 and 322:
Table D.1: List of international an
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Table D.3: Years of further schooli
Page 333 and 334:
show all

ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?