details
Article (journal) accessible via
URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-263315
DOI: 10.25656/01:26331; 10.1371/journal.pone.0257871
URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-263315
DOI: 10.25656/01:26331; 10.1371/journal.pone.0257871
| Title |
Setting a standard for low reading proficiency. A comparison of the bookmark procedure and constrained mixture Rasch model |
|---|---|
| Authors |
Feseker, Tabea;
Gnambs, Timo   ;
Artelt, Cordula |
| Source | PLOS ONE 16 (2021) 11, e0257871 S.  |
| Document | full text (2.236 KB) |
| License of the document |
|
| Keywords (German) | Lesefertigkeit; Bildungsforschung; NEPS <National Educational Panel Study>; Deutschland |
| sub-discipline | Empirical Educational Research |
| Document type | Article (journal) |
| ISSN | 1932-6203; 19326203 |
| Language | English |
| Year of creation | 2021 |
| review status | Peer-Reviewed |
| Abstract (English): | In order to draw pertinent conclusions about persons with low reading skills, it is essential to use validated standard-setting procedures by which they can be assigned to their appropriate level of proficiency. Since there is no standard-setting procedure without weaknesses, external validity studies are essential. Traditionally, studies have assessed validity by comparing different judgement-based standard-setting procedures. Only a few studies have used model-based approaches for validating judgement-based procedures. The present study addressed this shortcoming and compared agreement of the cut score placement between a judgement-based approach (i.e., Bookmark procedure) and a model-based one (i.e., constrained mixture Rasch model). This was performed by differentiating between individuals with low reading proficiency and those with a functional level of reading proficiency in three independent samples of the German National Educational Panel Study that included students from the ninth grade (N = 13,897) as well as adults (Ns = 5,335 and 3,145). The analyses showed quite similar mean cut scores for the two standard-setting procedures in two of the samples, whereas the third sample showed more pronounced differences. Importantly, these findings demonstrate that model-based approaches provide a valid and resource-efficient alternative for external validation, although they can be sensitive to the ability distribution within a sample. (DIPF/Orig.) |
| Statistics |  Number of document requests
|
| Checksums | checksum comparison as proof of integrity |
| Date of publication | 23.03.2023 |
| Citation | Feseker, Tabea; Gnambs, Timo; Artelt, Cordula: Setting a standard for low reading proficiency. A comparison of the bookmark procedure and constrained mixture Rasch model - In: PLOS ONE 16 (2021) 11, e0257871 S. - URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-263315 - DOI: 10.25656/01:26331; 10.1371/journal.pone.0257871 |
share content at social platforms
Teile diese Seite:
