Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 442

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses

Bray, Mark, Thomas, R. Murray·1995·Harvard Educational Review

Abstract

Research in the field of comparative education has traditionally focused on studies across world regions and countries. In this article, Mark Bray and R. Murray Thomas argue that this approach often yields incomplete and unbalanced perspectives on educational studies because it fails to consider salient differences among states, districts, schools, classrooms, and individuals. The authors illustrate the need for a broader conceptualization of comparative education and propose multilevel analysis as a more comprehensive model of research that can integrate insights gleaned from single-level approaches.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17763/haer.65.3.g3228437224v4877

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.

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

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

See all 442

Metadata

Authors
Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M.
Venue
Harvard Educational Review
Published
1995-09-01
Volume
65
Issue
3
Pages
472-491
ISSN
  • 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-5045
OpenAlex
W1827846433
Cited by
442
References
0
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17763/haer.65.3.g3228437224v4877
The paper
Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses. Harvard Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.65.3.g3228437224v4877

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.