The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methodological Advances in Cross-National Surveys of Educational Achievement
Abstract
In November 2000, the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (BICSE) held a symposium to draw on the wealth of experience gathered over a four--decade period, to evaluate improvement in the quality of the methodologies used in international studies, and to identify the most pressing methodological issues that remain to be solved. Since 1960, the United States has participated in 15 large--scale cross--national education surveys. The most assessed subjects have been science and mathematics through reading comprehension, geography, nonverbal reasoning, literature, French, English as a foreign language, civic education, history, computers in education, primary education, and second--language acquisition. The papers prepared for this symposium and discussions of those papers make up the volume, representing the most up--to--date and comprehensive assessment of methodological strengths and weaknesses of international comparative studies of student achievement. These papers answer the following questions: (1) What is the methodological quality of the most recent international surveys of student achievement? How authoritative are the results? (2) Has the methodological quality of international achievement studies improved over the past 40 years? and (3) What are promising opportunities for future improvement?
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018053 · Cited by 1,630
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538 · Cited by 801
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164413498257 · Cited by 767
Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes
Broer, M., Bai, Y., & Fonseca, F. (2019) · IEA Research for Education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1 · Cited by 145
Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (2015) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811511700104 · Cited by 75
May, H. (2006) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986031001063 · Cited by 65
Inadequacies in the SES–Achievement model: Evidence from PISA and other studies
Marks, G. N., & O'Connell, M. (2021) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3293 · Cited by 47
Claro, M., Cabello, T., San Martín, E., & Nussbaum, M. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.018 · Cited by 42
Home resources as a measure of socio-economic status in Ghana
Bofah, E. A.-T., & Hannula, M. S. (2017) · Large-scale Assessments in Education · doi:10.1186/s40536-017-0039-5 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Venue
- National Academies Press eBooks
- Publisher
- National Academies Press
- Published
- 2002-05-14
- OpenAlex
- W607541957
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.13
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.