Search results in the DIPF database of publications

Your query:

(Personen: "Buerger," und "Sarah")

What makes the difference? The impact of item properties on mode effects in reading assessments Buerger, Sarah; Kroehne, Ulf; Köhler, Carmen; Goldhammer, Frank Journal Article | In: Studies in Educational Evaluation | 2019 39232 Endnote: Author(s): Buerger, Sarah; Kroehne, Ulf; Köhler, Carmen; Goldhammer, Frank
Title: What makes the difference? The impact of item properties on mode effects in reading assessments
In: Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62 (2019) , S. 1-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.04.005
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191491X18302141
Publication Type: 3a. Beiträge in begutachteten Zeitschriften; Aufsatz (keine besondere Kategorie)
Language: Englisch
Abstract: The transition from paper-based assessment (PBA) to computer-based assessment (CBA) requires mode effect studies to investigate the comparability of scores across modes. In the National Educational Panel Study experimental studies were conducted to investigate psychometric differences between modes. In the present study, the cross-mode equivalence of a reading test was examined. The investigation sought to determine whether mode effects can be explained by item properties. The results showed that splitting texts between multiple screens, did not affect comparability. However, item difficulty was increased in CBA when items in the first and second position of a unit were not presented on the same double-page as in PBA. Regarding response formats, assignment tasks on the computer requiring the use of combo boxes were more difficult than on paper, while no difference was found for multiple choice items. (DIPF/Orig.)
DIPF-Departments: Bildungsqualität und Evaluation

Construct equivalence of PISA reading comprehension measured with paper‐based and computer‐based […] Kroehne, Ulf; Buerger, Sarah; Hahnel, Carolin; Goldhammer, Frank Journal Article | In: Educational Measurement | 2019 39814 Endnote: Author(s): Kroehne, Ulf; Buerger, Sarah; Hahnel, Carolin; Goldhammer, Frank
Title: Construct equivalence of PISA reading comprehension measured with paper‐based and computer‐based assessments
In: Educational Measurement, 38 (2019) 3, S. 97-111
DOI: 10.1111/emip.12280
URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emip.12280
Publication Type: 3a. Beiträge in begutachteten Zeitschriften; Aufsatz (keine besondere Kategorie)
Language: Englisch
Keywords: Einflussfaktor; Schülerleistung; Frage; Antwort; Interaktion; Unterschied; Vergleich; Item-Response-Theory; Deutschland; PISA <Programme for International Student Assessment>; Leseverstehen; Messverfahren; Testkonstruktion; Korrelation; Äquivalenz; Papier-Bleistift-Test; Computerunterstütztes Verfahren; Technologiebasiertes Testen; Leistungsmessung; Testverfahren; Testdurchführung
Abstract: For many years, reading comprehension in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was measured via paper‐based assessment (PBA). In the 2015 cycle, computer‐based assessment (CBA) was introduced, raising the question of whether central equivalence criteria required for a valid interpretation of the results are fulfilled. As an extension of the PISA 2012 main study in Germany, a random subsample of two intact PISA reading clusters, either computerized or paper‐based, was assessed using a random group design with an additional within‐subject variation. The results are in line with the hypothesis of construct equivalence. That is, the latent cross‐mode correlation of PISA reading comprehension was not significantly different from the expected correlation between the two clusters. Significant mode effects on item difficulties were observed for a small number of items only. Interindividual differences found in mode effects were negatively correlated with reading comprehension, but were not predicted by basic computer skills or gender. Further differences between modes were found with respect to the number of missing values.
Abstract (english): For many years, reading comprehension in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was measured via paper‐based assessment (PBA). In the 2015 cycle, computer‐based assessment (CBA) was introduced, raising the question of whether central equivalence criteria required for a valid interpretation of the results are fulfilled. As an extension of the PISA 2012 main study in Germany, a random subsample of two intact PISA reading clusters, either computerized or paper‐based, was assessed using a random group design with an additional within‐subject variation. The results are in line with the hypothesis of construct equivalence. That is, the latent cross‐mode correlation of PISA reading comprehension was not significantly different from the expected correlation between the two clusters. Significant mode effects on item difficulties were observed for a small number of items only. Interindividual differences found in mode effects were negatively correlated with reading comprehension, but were not predicted by basic computer skills or gender. Further differences between modes were found with respect to the number of missing values.
DIPF-Departments: Bildungsqualität und Evaluation