Cross-cultural comparability and validity of metacognitive knowledge in reading in PISA 2009: a comparison of two scoring methods

Accurate measurement of metacognitive knowledge in reading is important. Different instruments and scoring methods have been proposed but not systematically compared for their measurement comparability across cultures and validity. Given student data from 34 OECD countries in the Programme for Inter...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Assessment in education : principles, policy & practice policy & practice, 2020-11, Vol.27 (6), p.635-654
Main Authors: Zhou, Ji, He, Jia, Lafontaine, Dominique
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Achievement Tests
Cross Cultural Studies
cross-cultural comparability
Discrimination
Education & enseignement
Education & instruction
Foreign Countries
International Assessment
Likert scale
Measures
Metacognition
Metacognitive knowledge
PISA
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Ratings & rankings
Reading
Reading Comprehension
Reading Motivation
Sciences sociales & comportementales, psychologie
Scoring
Secondary School Students
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology
Test Validity
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Accurate measurement of metacognitive knowledge in reading is important. Different instruments and scoring methods have been proposed but not systematically compared for their measurement comparability across cultures and validity. Given student data from 34 OECD countries in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009, we compared two scoring methods for metacognitive knowledge in reading based on pair-wise comparisons of strategies and with conventional Likert-scale responses of selected items. Metacognitive knowledge scored with conventional Likert-scale responses demonstrated higher cross-cultural comparability than the pair-wise comparison method. Linked with reading competence, motivation and control strategy in reading, scores from the two scoring methods showed differential criterion validity, possibly related to the types of tasks (understanding and remembering versus summarising), item content (complexity and discrimination between preferred strategies in reading) and common method variance (e.g., individuals' stable response style in rating scales). Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed..
ISSN:0969-594X
1465-329X
1465-329X
DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2020.1828820