CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 251

The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: a review and some suggested improvements

Avvisati, Francesco·2020·Large-scale Assessments in Education
DOI 10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article reviews the history of the measure of socio-economic status in PISA and identifies theoretical underpinnings of the index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). It then highlights multiple changes in the instruments and scaling methods used by PISA over time, and suggests ways of resolving the tensions behind some of these changes and thereby stabilise the measure of ESCS. A stable definition and operational procedure to derive the ESCS index appears essential to compare the ESCS-achievement relationship over time. Some of the suggestions included in this article were already implemented in the 2018 cycle.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Bollen, K., & Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 265-284. https ://doi.org/10.1037/a0024 448. · DOI
  2. Brighouse, H., Ladd, H., Loeb, S., & Swift, A. (2015). Educational goods and values: A framework for decision makers. Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 3-25. https ://doi.org/10.1177/14778 78515 62088 · DOI
  3. Deaton, A. (2002). Policy implications of the gradient of health and wealth. Health Affairs, 21(2), 13-30. https ://doi. org/10.1377/hltha ff.21.2.13. · DOI
  4. Ensminger, M., & Fothergill, K. (2003). A decade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. In M. Bornstein & R. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 13-27). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Friedman, M. (1957). The permanent income hypothesis. In A theory of the consumption function (pp. 20-37). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved January 18, 2019 from https ://www.nber.org/chapt ers/c4405 .pdf.
  6. Ganzeboom, H., De Graaf, P., & Treiman, D. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1-56. https ://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017 -B. · DOI
  7. Goodman, E., Adler, N., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. (2001). Adolescents' perceptions of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31-e31. https ://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31. INVALSI. (2017). Rilevazioni nazionali degli apprendimenti 2016-17. Retrieved January 18, 2019 from https ://inval si-areap rove.cinec a.it/docs/file/Rappo rto_Prove _INVAL SI_2017.pdf. · DOI
  8. Jerrim, J., & Micklewright, J. (2014). Socio-economic gradients in children's cognitive skills: Are cross-country comparisons robust to who reports family background? European Sociological Review, 30(6), 766-781. https ://doi.org/10.1093/esr/ jcu07 · DOI
  9. Lee, S., & von Davier, M. (2020). Improving measurement properties of the PISA home possessions scale through partial invariance modeling. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(1), 55-83. Retrieved from https ://www.psych ologi e-aktue ll.com/filea dmin/Redak tion/Journ ale/ptam-2020-1/04_Lee.pdf
  10. Lien, N., Friestad, C., & Klepp, K.-I. (2001). Adolescents' proxy reports of parents' socioeconomic status: How valid are they? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55(10), 731-737. https ://doi.org/10.1136/jech.55.10.731. · DOI
  11. Looker, E. (1989). Accuracy of proxy reports of parental status characteristics. Sociology of Education, 62(4), 257. https ://doi. org/10.2307/21128 30. · DOI
  12. Mueller, C., & Parcel, T. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52(1), 13-30.
  13. O'Connell, M. (2019). Is the impact of SES on educational performance overestimated? Evidence from the PISA survey. Intelligence, 75, 41-47. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.intel l.2019.04.005. · DOI
  14. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi. org/10.1787/97892 64195 905-en. · DOI
  15. OECD. (2005a). PISA 2003 data analysis manual: SPSS. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi.org/10.1787/97892 64010 666-en. · DOI
  16. OECD. (2005b). PISA 2003 technical report. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi.org/10.1787/97892 64010 543-en. · DOI
  17. OECD. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi.org/10.1787/97892 64048 096-en. · DOI
  18. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167872-en. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 23, 2019 from https ://www.oecd. org/pisa/pisap roduc ts/PISA-2012-techn ical-repor t-final .pdf. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Retrieved July 31, 2017 from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-techn ical- repor t/. OECD. (2018a). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi. org/10.1787/97892 64301 603-en. OECD. (2018b). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. In PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://doi. org/10.1787/97892 64073 234-en. · DOI
  19. Pokropek, A., Borgonovi, F., & McCormick, C. (2017). On the cross-country comparability of indicators of socioeconomic resources in PISA. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(4), 243-258. https ://doi.org/10.1080/08957 347.2017.13539 · DOI
  20. Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., & Wu, M. (2019). TAM: test analysis modules. Retrieved from https ://CRAN.R-proje ct.org/packa ge=TAM. · DOI
  21. Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2013). Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 259-278. https ://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.259. · DOI
  22. Willms, J., & Tramonte, L. (2015). Towards the development of contextual questionnaires for the PISA for development study. In OECD education working papers (Vol. 2015). Paris: OECD Publishing. https ://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js1k v8crs jf-en. · DOI
  23. Willms, J. D., & Tramonte, L. (2019). The measurement and use of socioeconomic status in educational research. In L. E. Suter, B. Denman, & E. Smith (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of comparative studies in education. London: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avvisati, F.
ORCID
Avvisati, Francesco
Venue
Large-scale Assessments in Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-06-06
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-0739
DOI
10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Cited by
251
References
1
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review