IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qss/dqsswp/1602.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

PISA 2012: How do results for the paper and computer tests compare?

Author

Listed:
  • John Jerrim

    (Institute of Education, University College London)

Abstract

The Programme for International Assessment (PISA) is an important cross-national study of 15 year olds academic achievement. Although it has traditionally been conducted using paper-and-pencil tests, the vast majority of countries will use computer-based assessment from 2015. In this paper we consider how cross-country comparisons of children's skills differ between paper and computer versions of the PISA mathematics test. Using data from PISA 2012, where more than 200,000 children from 32 economies completed both paper and computer versions of the mathematics assessment, we find important and interesting differences between the two sets of results. This includes a substantial drop of more than 50 PISA test points (half a standard deviation) in the average performance of children from Shanghai-China. Moreover, by considering children's responses to particular test items, we show how differences are unlikely to be solely due to the interactive nature of certain computer test questions. The paper concludes with a discussion of what the findings imply for interpretation of PISA results in 2015 and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • John Jerrim, 2016. "PISA 2012: How do results for the paper and computer tests compare?," DoQSS Working Papers 16-02, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
  • Handle: RePEc:qss:dqsswp:1602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.ucl.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1602.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    PISA; computer-based assessment; Shanghai-China; educational inequality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:qss:dqsswp:1602. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Dr Neus Bover Fonts (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dqioeuk.html .

    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.