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

Autor/inn/en	Zhou, Ji; He, Jia; Lafontaine, Dominique
Titel	Cross-cultural comparability and validity of metacognitive knowledge in reading in PISA 2009. A comparison of two scoring methods.
Quelle	In: Assessment in education, 27 (2020) 6, S. 635-654 PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei (inhaltlich überarbeitete Version); PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei (inhaltlich überarbeitete Version); PDF als Volltext (3) Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0969-594X; 1465-329X
DOI	10.25656/01:22138 10.1080/0969594X.2020.1828820
URN	urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-221384
Schlagwörter	Wissen; Sekundäranalyse; Validität; Vergleich; Metakognition; Likert-Skala; Datenanalyse; Lesen; Messung; Interkultureller Vergleich; PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment); OECD-Staaten
Abstract	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. (DIPF/Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2021/4