Table 13.8: <strong>ICCS</strong> students included in multiple regression modelsCountryAnalysis of Expected ElectoralParticipationAnalysis of Expected PoliticalParticipationTotal Number of Total number of Percentage of Total number of Percentage ofAssessed Students students in students in students in students inanalysis analysis analysis analysisAustria 3,385 3,127 92.4 3,130 92.5Belgium (Flemish) 2,968 2,877 96.9 2,878 97.0Bulgaria 3,257 2,976 91.4 2,975 91.3Chile 5,192 4,998 96.3 4,993 96.2Chinese Taipei 5,167 5,103 98.8 5,103 98.8Colombia 6,204 5,455 87.9 5,426 87.5Cyprus 3,194 2,735 85.6 2,722 85.2Czech Republic 4,630 4,548 98.2 4,544 98.1Denmark 4,508 4,089 90.7 4,083 90.6Dominican Republic 4,589 3,287 71.6 3,231 70.4England 2,916 2,720 93.3 2,721 93.3Estonia 2,743 2,648 96.5 2,647 96.5Finland 3,307 3,228 97.6 3,226 97.6Greece 3,153 2,958 93.8 2,959 93.8Guatemala 4,002 3,615 90.3 3,604 90.1Hong Kong SAR 2,902 2,660 91.7 2,660 91.7Indonesia 5,068 4,717 93.1 4,715 93.0Ireland 3,355 3,120 93.0 3,120 93.0Italy 3,366 3,281 97.5 3,276 97.3Korea, Republic of 5,254 5,207 99.1 5,206 99.1Latvia 2,761 2,683 97.2 2,686 97.3Liechtenstein 357 332 93.0 331 92.7Lithuania 3,902 3,819 97.9 3,816 97.8Luxembourg 4,852 4,578 94.4 4,574 94.3Malta 2,143 2,031 94.8 2,031 94.8Mexico 6,576 5,937 90.3 5,908 89.8Netherlands 1,964 1,792 91.2 1,793 91.3New Zealand 3,979 3,631 91.3 3,627 91.2Norway 3,013 2,674 88.7 2,666 88.5Paraguay 3,399 2,670 78.6 2,652 78.0Poland 3,249 3,180 97.9 3,179 97.8Russian Federation 4,295 4,220 98.3 4,209 98.0Slovak Republic 2,970 2,940 99.0 2,939 99.0Slovenia 3,070 2,975 96.9 2,974 96.9Spain 3,309 3,158 95.4 3,159 95.5Sweden 3,464 3,282 94.7 3,278 94.6Switzerland 2,924 2,786 95.3 2,784 95.2Thailand 5,263 5,141 97.7 5,141 97.7Overall <strong>ICCS</strong> sample 140,650 131,178 93.3 130,966 93.1SCALING PROCEDURES FOR <strong>ICCS</strong> questionnaire ITEMS279
SummaryThe jackknife repeated replication technique (JRR) was applied in order to allow reportingof sampling errors in <strong>ICCS</strong> reports. Plausible value methodology was used with respect toreporting civic knowledge scores. This process permitted estimation not only of variance due tosampling but also of imputation variance.Different types of significance test were used to compare means or percentages betweenparticipating countries, with the <strong>ICCS</strong> average, or between subgroups within the sample. Theequating (or link) error was taken into account when averages of civic content knowledge in<strong>2009</strong> were compared with averages of civic content knowledge from the CIVED survey of1999.<strong>ICCS</strong> <strong>2009</strong> data were used to estimate the multiple regression models as well as the hierarchicallinear models, and explained variance decomposition was used to estimate the uniquecontribution of different sets of predictor variables in the multiple regression models. Theexplained variance at student and school levels was compared separately whenever two-levelhierarchical linear models were used.Missing data problems became more prevalent during multivariate analyses of <strong>ICCS</strong> data thatinvolved larger numbers of predictor variables. For the reported analyses, data were treatedby adding missing indicators and substituting missing values with modes or means. Anyoneconducting multivariate analysis of <strong>ICCS</strong> data needs to take missing data problems intoaccount and should also explore possibilities for applying more advanced methods, includingimputation procedures.ReferencesCohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gonzalez, E. J., & Foy, P. (2000). Estimation of sampling variance. In M. O. Martin, K. D.Gregory, & S. E. Semler (Eds.), TIMSS 1999: <strong>Technical</strong> report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysismethods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishers.Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchicallinear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). <strong>ICCS</strong> <strong>2009</strong> international report:Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries.Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement (<strong>IEA</strong>).Westat (2007). WesVar ®4.3: User’s guide [computer software]. Rockville MD: Author.Wolter, K. M. (1985). Introduction to variance estimation. New York: Springer.280<strong>ICCS</strong> <strong>2009</strong> 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:
44ICCS 2009 technical report
- Page 47 and 48:
was that the test would focus on kn
- Page 49 and 50:
Asian questionnaire developmentThe
- Page 51 and 52:
50 ICCS 2009 technical report
- 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:
88ICCS 2009 technical report
- 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:
Table 9.5: Percentages of IQCM resp
- Page 113 and 114:
Table 9.7: 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 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:
Figure 12.3: Confirmatory factor an
- Page 171 and 172:
Table 12.4: Item parameters for sca
- Page 173 and 174:
Figure 12.4: Confirmatory factor an
- Page 175 and 176:
Table 12.6: Item parameters for sca
- Page 177 and 178:
Table 12.8: Item parameters for sca
- Page 179 and 180:
Table 12.9: Reliabilities for scale
- Page 181 and 182:
Figure 12.7: Confirmatory factor an
- Page 183 and 184:
Table 12.12: Item parameters for sc
- Page 185 and 186:
Students’ attitudes toward instit
- Page 187 and 188:
Figure 12.9: Confirmatory factor an
- Page 189 and 190:
Table 12.16: Item parameters for sc
- Page 191 and 192:
Table 12.17: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 193 and 194:
Table 12.19: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 195 and 196:
Table 12.21: Factor loadings and re
- Page 197 and 198:
Table 12.22: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 199 and 200:
Table 12.24: Reliabilities for scal
- 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:
Table 12.29: Item parameters for sc
- Page 209 and 210:
Teachers’ reports of teaching civ
- Page 211 and 212:
Table 12.31: Item parameters for sc
- Page 213 and 214:
School questionnairePrincipals’ r
- Page 215 and 216:
Table 12.33: Item parameters for sc
- Page 217 and 218:
Principals’ reports on the local
- Page 219 and 220:
Table 12.35: Item parameters for sc
- Page 221 and 222:
Principals’ reports on school cli
- Page 223 and 224:
Table 12.37: Item parameters for sc
- Page 225 and 226:
Table 12.39: Item parameters for sc
- Page 227 and 228:
Table 12.40: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 229 and 230: Table 12.42: 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 235 and 236: Table 12.47: Item parameters for sc
- Page 237 and 238: Table 12.48: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 239 and 240: All of the items associated with Qu
- Page 241 and 242: Table 12.50: Reliabilities for scal
- 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: Table 12.56: Reliabilities for scal
- Page 249 and 250: Figure 12.30: Confirmatory factor a
- Page 251 and 252: Figure 12.31: Confirmatory factor a
- Page 253 and 254: Question 4 asked students to rate t
- Page 255 and 256: Table 12.63: Item parameters for sc
- Page 257 and 258: Students’ perceptions of public s
- Page 259 and 260: Figure 12.34: Confirmatory factor a
- 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 and 276: During the multiple regression anal
- Page 277 and 278: Table 13.6: Coefficients of missing
- Page 279: Table 13.7: Coefficients of missing
- 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: Table B.17.2: Allocation of teacher
- Page 301 and 302: B.20. Korea• Special education sc
- Page 303 and 304: B.23. Lithuania• Special needs sc
- Page 305 and 306: Table B.26.2: Allocation of teacher
- 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: Table D.1: List of international an
- Page 325 and 326: 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:
332 ICCS 2009 technical report