ICCS 2009 Technical Report - IEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 13.6: Coefficients of missing indicators multiple regression analysis of expected electoral participationCoefficients of Missing Indicators for:CountryCitizenship selfefficacyInternal politicalefficacyInterest in politicaland social issuesTrust in civicinstitutionsParental interest Participation in Participation atcommunityschoolSupport forpolitical partiesAustria -3.2 (3.2) -3.2 (1.8) -4.4 (2.1) -4.4 (2.1) -1.6 (2.0) -0.8 (1.6) 0.4 (1.5) -4.4 (2.1)Belgium (Flemish) 17.9 (0.5) -6.2 (0.7) -3.8 (3.0) -3.8 (3.0) -0.1 (2.2) -3.5 (6.6) -0.4 (4.8) -3.8 (3.0)Bulgaria 0.2 (2.9) 5.8 (4.6) -1.8 (2.6) -1.8 (2.6) -0.7 (2.0) -1.7 (2.5) 0.3 (2.5) -1.8 (2.6)Chile -7.3 (5.2) -0.2 (2.7) 1.4 (2.1) 1.4 (2.1) -2.7 (1.6) -0.7 (1.5) -1.4 (1.6) 1.4 (2.1)Chinese Taipei 3.7 (3.2) -5.8 (0.3) 1.5 (2.2) 1.5 (2.2) -1.8 (5.0) 1.0 (1.9) -5.1 (8.5) 1.5 (2.2)Colombia 1.3 (1.5) -2.0 (2.5) -0.6 (2.3) -0.6 (2.3) -0.2 (0.5) 0.9 (1.3) -3.0 (1.6) -0.6 (2.3)Cyprus 1.3 (2.1) 3.1 (2.4) 0.7 (1.7) 0.7 (1.7) 0.4 (0.9) -4.2 (1.5) -0.1 (1.6) 0.7 (1.7)Czech Republic 3.4 (1.4) 0.9 (1.7) -1.9 (2.5) -1.9 (2.5) -1.5 (1.2) 0.9 (1.9) -2.9 (3.6) -1.9 (2.5)Denmark 4.2 (3.0) -1.8 (1.9) -1.2 (2.0) -1.2 (2.0) 0.3 (1.1) 4.3 (2.6) -2.7 (2.5) -1.2 (2.0)Dominican Republic -0.3 (2.0) -1.5 (1.2) -1.7 (2.7) -1.7 (2.7) -0.1 (0.7) -0.9 (1.0) -0.7 (0.8) -1.7 (2.7)England 1.1 (3.4) -3.7 (1.9) 0.7 (1.2) 0.7 (1.2) -1.3 (0.7) -2.4 (2.4) -2.1 (3.5) 0.7 (1.2)Estonia -4.9 (4.8) -2.6 (4.0) -5.8 (3.1) -5.8 (3.1) -1.9 (2.1) 3.0 (3.8) 0.2 (3.3) -5.8 (3.1)Finland 1.8 (3.2) -1.2 (2.1) -0.5 (2.2) -0.5 (2.2) -2.5 (1.1) 2.4 (3.2) -1.7 (3.2) -0.5 (2.2)Greece 3.4 (3.1) -0.7 (2.9) 2.1 (2.3) 2.1 (2.3) -2.8 (2.4) 0.4 (2.8) 3.3 (2.7) 2.1 (2.3)Guatemala 0.1 (1.1) -0.4 (1.4) 2.7 (1.6) 2.7 (1.6) 0.2 (0.7) -1.6 (1.3) 1.0 (1.6) 2.7 (1.6)Hong Kong SAR 5.2 (1.8) -13.2 (1.8) -0.6 (4.5) -0.6 (4.5) -1.7 (1.6) -14.0 (0.6) -0.2 (3.2) -0.6 (4.5)Indonesia -1.3 (2.6) 1.8 (1.8) -1.0 (1.5) -1.0 (1.5) -1.8 (1.5) -0.7 (1.3) -0.8 (1.4) -1.0 (1.5)Ireland -1.2 (3.0) -3.5 (3.9) -1.4 (2.3) -1.4 (2.3) -1.2 (1.3) -1.2 (2.2) 3.3 (2.8) -1.4 (2.3)Italy -2.9 (3.8) -0.7 (3.1) -3.0 (1.9) -3.0 (1.9) 1.3 (3.7) -9.3 (0.9) 0.8 (2.6) -3.0 (1.9)Korea, Republic of 7.0 (2.2) -2.0 (4.1) -1.0 (2.5) -1.0 (2.5) 0.1 (3.9) -1.1 (1.6) -0.7 (4.3) -1.0 (2.5)Latvia 0.2 (2.1) 4.6 (1.9) 3.7 (1.7) 3.7 (1.7) -2.6 (2.3) -2.8 (1.8) -11.7 (3.5) 3.7 (1.7)Liechtenstein 2.0 (1.7) 0.0 (0.0) -2.5 (1.0) -2.5 (1.0) -3.6 (3.8) 0.0 (0.0) -4.9 (4.0) -2.5 (1.0)Lithuania -7.3 (6.8) -1.2 (3.3) -1.4 (6.5) -1.4 (6.5) -2.4 (1.7) -1.2 (4.1) 1.0 (3.3) -1.4 (6.5)Luxembourg 3.9 (1.5) -1.5 (3.0) -4.4 (1.5) -4.4 (1.5) -2.2 (0.7) -2.6 (3.4) 1.6 (2.8) -4.4 (1.5)Malta 1.2 (5.8) -4.4 (4.3) -4.3 (4.6) -4.3 (4.6) 1.4 (3.3) -15.0 (20.8) -4.4 (2.0) -4.3 (4.6)Mexico 1.2 (1.6) -0.7 (2.2) -0.9 (2.1) -0.9 (2.1) 1.0 (1.0) -1.6 (1.6) 0.9 (1.8) -0.9 (2.1)Netherlands -1.0 (8.3) 3.2 (3.0) 2.1 (7.6) 2.1 (7.6) 1.2 (2.1) -18.0 (1.5) 21.8 (1.7) 2.1 (7.6)SCALING PROCEDURES FOR ICCS questionnaire ITEMS275
Table 13.6: Coefficients of missing indicators multiple regression analysis of expected electoral participation (contd.)Coefficients of Missing Indicators for:CountryCitizenship selfefficacyInternal politicalefficacyInterest in politicaland social issuesTrust in civicinstitutionsParental interest Participation in Participation atcommunityschoolSupport forpolitical partiesNew Zealand -2.6 (1.2) -1.1 (3.2) 1.1 (3.1) 1.1 (3.1) 0.0 (1.2) 0.4 (1.0) -3.3 (1.6) 1.1 (3.1)Norway -2.3 (1.6) -3.2 (3.2) 1.5 (2.0) 1.5 (2.0) -2.6 (1.2) 0.3 (2.2) 4.6 (2.1) 1.5 (2.0)Paraguay 0.5 (2.1) -1.5 (2.2) -0.8 (1.9) -0.8 (1.9) 0.0 (1.0) -0.6 (1.0) 0.1 (1.4) -0.8 (1.9)Poland 2.5 (2.1) -1.2 (3.3) -5.4 (3.6) -5.4 (3.6) 0.5 (1.5) 1.2 (4.0) 3.3 (3.1) -5.4 (3.6)Russian Federation 2.1 (1.6) 1.3 (2.1) -0.6 (1.7) -0.6 (1.7) 6.4 (2.2) -0.3 (1.4) -2.4 (2.2) -0.6 (1.7)Slovak Republic 3.3 (2.3) -0.7 (2.0) -2.1 (2.0) -2.1 (2.0) -2.4 (1.7) -2.7 (4.0) 4.1 (2.2) -2.1 (2.0)Slovenia 1.3 (3.6) -0.4 (2.5) 2.8 (2.3) 2.8 (2.3) -1.3 (1.4) -1.0 (2.9) 2.1 (4.0) 2.8 (2.3)Spain -2.5 (1.9) 0.0 (3.2) -0.9 (2.2) -0.9 (2.2) -1.1 (1.6) 1.8 (1.7) -0.6 (2.0) -0.9 (2.2)Sweden 1.8 (2.0) 2.1 (2.7) 2.2 (1.0) 2.2 (1.0) -2.2 (1.1) -1.1 (1.1) 0.2 (1.7) 2.2 (1.0)Switzerland -1.5 (3.7) 1.5 (3.2) -0.4 (1.7) -0.4 (1.7) 2.5 (1.2) -1.8 (2.8) 1.2 (4.3) -0.4 (1.7)Thailand 4.8 (3.0) -0.7 (2.8) -6.5 (2.9) -6.5 (2.9) 0.1 (1.6) 1.0 (1.9) -0.7 (1.3) -6.5 (2.9)ICCS average 1.0 (0.5) -1.1 (0.4) -1.0 (0.5) -1.0 (0.5) -0.7 (0.3) -1.9 (0.7) 0.0 (0.5) -1.0 (0.5)Notes:( ) Standard errors appear in parentheses.* Statistically significant ( p < 0.05) coefficients in bold.Unstandardized regression coefficients (standard errors in brackets) for missing indicators of ...*276ICCS 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 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
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 and 150:
The approach chosen was essentially
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 11.6: Scatterplot for link i
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:
Page 171 and 172:
Table 12.4: Item parameters for sca
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Table 12.9: Reliabilities for scale
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Students’ attitudes toward instit
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Table 12.17: Reliabilities for scal
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Table 12.21: Factor loadings and re
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
In Question 19, teachers were asked
Page 203 and 204:
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: Table 12.39: Item parameters for sc
Page 227 and 228: Table 12.40: Reliabilities for scal
Page 231 and 232: Figure 12.23: Confirmatory factor a
Page 233 and 234: Figure 12.24 shows the results of t
Page 239 and 240: All of the items associated with Qu
Page 243 and 244: Figure 12.28 shows the results of t
Page 245 and 246: In Question 4, students were asked
Page 253 and 254: Question 4 asked students to rate t
Page 257 and 258: Students’ perceptions of public s
Page 261 and 262: 260ICCS 2009 technical report
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: During the multiple regression anal
Page 279 and 280: Table 13.7: Coefficients of missing
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 301 and 302: B.20. Korea• Special education sc
Page 303 and 304: B.23. Lithuania• Special needs sc
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 327 and 328:
Table D.1: List of international an
Page 329 and 330:
Table D.1: List of international an
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?