IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v86y2021ics0160289621000131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relation between science achievement and general cognitive abilities in large-scale assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Kampa, Nele
  • Scherer, Ronny
  • Saß, Steffani
  • Schipolowski, Stefan

Abstract

Although large-scale assessments (LSA) of school achievement claim to measure domain-specific achievement, they have been criticized for primarily measuring domain-general abilities. Numerous studies provide evidence that LSA of mathematical achievement as well as verbal achievement cover both general cognitive abilities (GCA) and domain-specific achievement dimensions. We extend previous research by analyzing a standards-oriented and literacy-oriented LSA in the domain of science to determine the relation of these two assessment types with domain-general abilities. While literacy-oriented assessments focus on the knowledge and skills students need to meet the demands of modern societies, standards-oriented assessments focus on national educational standards and curricula. A sample of 1722 students worked on three assessments: (a) the PISA scientific literacy assessment; (b) a standards-oriented assessment based on the German National Educational Standards in biology, chemistry, and physics developed by the Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB); and (c) a GCA test. Comparisons of competing structural models showed that models differentiating between domain-specific achievement and GCA best represented the structure of the assessments. Furthermore, standards-oriented and literacy-oriented LSAs in science shared common variance with GCA but also comprised specific variance. In addition to a factor representing students' GCA, we identified a science literacy-oriented and two standards-oriented factors. Relations with school grades in various STEM and non-STEM subjects were mixed and only partly provided evidence for the specificity of science LSAs. Our findings are important for understanding and interpreting results of LSAs in the contexts of GCA and science. We discuss our outcomes with respect to educational monitoring practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Kampa, Nele & Scherer, Ronny & Saß, Steffani & Schipolowski, Stefan, 2021. "The relation between science achievement and general cognitive abilities in large-scale assessments," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:86:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000131
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621000131
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101529?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saß, Steffani & Kampa, Nele & Köller, Olaf, 2017. "The interplay of g and mathematical abilities in large-scale assessments across grades," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 33-44.
    2. Gignac, Gilles E. & Kretzschmar, André, 2017. "Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 138-147.
    3. Margaret Wu, 2010. "Comparing the Similarities and Differences of PISA 2003 and TIMSS," OECD Education Working Papers 32, OECD Publishing.
    4. Albert Satorra & Peter Bentler, 2010. "Ensuring Positiveness of the Scaled Difference Chi-square Test Statistic," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 243-248, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Sai-fu Fung & Esther Oi-wah Chow & Chau-kiu Cheung, 2020. "Development and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of a Brief Wisdom Development Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Csilla Horváth & Feray Adigüzel & Hester van Herk, 2013. "Cultural Aspects Of Compulsive Buying In Emerging And Developed Economies: A Cross Cultural Study In Compulsive Buying," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 4(2).
    4. Anastasia Stathopoulou & Tommy Kweku Quansah & George Balabanis, 2022. "The Blinding Effects of Team Identification on Sports Corruption: Cross-Cultural Evidence from Sub-Saharan African Countries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(2), pages 511-529, August.
    5. Balabanis, George & Stathopoulou, Anastasia, 2021. "The price of social status desire and public self-consciousness in luxury consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 463-475.
    6. Mirjam Braßler & Martin Schultze, 2021. "Students’ Innovation in Education for Sustainable Development—A Longitudinal Study on Interdisciplinary vs. Monodisciplinary Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Lars Petersen & Jacob Hörisch & Kathleen Jacobs, 2021. "Worse is worse and better doesn't matter?: The effects of favorable and unfavorable environmental information on consumers’ willingness to pay," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1338-1356, October.
    8. Giofrè, David & Pastore, Massimiliano & Cornoldi, Cesare & Toffalini, Enrico, 2019. "Lumpers vs. splitters: Intelligence in children with specific learning disorders," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    9. F Rodrigues & R Macedo & DS Teixeira & L Cid & D Monteiro, 2020. "Motivation in sport and exercise: a comparison between the BRSQ and BREQ," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1335-1350, August.
    10. João Fidalgo & João Botelho & Luís Proença & José João Mendes & Vanessa Machado & Ana Sintra Delgado, 2022. "Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-8, August.
    11. Antonio J. Rodríguez-Hidalgo & Anabel Alcívar & Mauricio Herrera-López, 2019. "Traditional Bullying and Discriminatory Bullying Around Special Educational Needs: Psychometric Properties of Two Instruments to Measure It," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Saß, Steffani & Kampa, Nele & Köller, Olaf, 2017. "The interplay of g and mathematical abilities in large-scale assessments across grades," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 33-44.
    13. Marco Batista & Marta Leyton-Román & Samuel Honório & Jorge Santos & Ruth Jiménez-Castuera, 2020. "Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Frías-Jamilena, Dolores M. & Sabiote-Ortiz, Carmen M. & Martín-Santana, Josefa D. & Beerli-Palacio, Asunción, 2018. "The effect of Cultural Intelligence on consumer-based destination brand equity," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 22-36.
    15. Piotr Koc, 2021. "Measuring Non-electoral Political Participation: Bi-factor Model as a Tool to Extract Dimensions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 271-287, July.
    16. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Fredrich, Viktor, 2016. "Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3584-3590.
    17. Olenka Dworakowski & Zilla M. Huber & Tabea Meier & Ryan L. Boyd & Mike Martin & Andrea B. Horn, 2022. "You Do Not Have to Get through This Alone: Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Psychosocial Resources during the COVID-19 Pandemic across Four Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Chen, Tingting & Li, Fuli & Chen, Xiao-Ping & Ou, Zhanying, 2018. "Innovate or die: How should knowledge-worker teams respond to technological turbulence?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Díaz, Estrella & Martín-Consuegra, David & Esteban, Águeda, 2015. "Perceptions of service cannibalisation: The moderating effect of the type of travel agency," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 329-342.
    20. Sen Sendjaya & Nathan Eva & Ivan Butar Butar & Mulyadi Robin & Samantha Castles, 2019. "SLBS-6: Validation of a Short Form of the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 941-956, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:86:y:2021:i:c:s0160289621000131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.