English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This paper uses an approximate average percent-correct methodology to compare the ranks that would be obtained for PISA 2006 countries if the rankings had been derived from items judged by each country to be of highest priority for inclusion. The results reported show a remarkable consistency in the country rank orderings across different sets of countries’ preferred items when comparing with the rank reported in the PISA 2006 initial report (OECD, 2007). On average, only few countries systemically go up or down in their ranking position. As these countries are in a group of moderate performers with very comparable outcomes, these shifts in the ranking would probably be associated with minor changes in mean performance on the final PISA scale. The analysis suggests that PISA rankings are noticeably stable thanks to the large enough pool of test items able to accommodate diverse preferences. The paper shows how important it is to base a choice of test items on a properly structured process which allows different experts and countries to equally contribute. The evidence presented demonstrates that in PISA, average rank positions of countries across different sets of preferred items are apparently stable and experts are not able to predict which items can elevate performance of their countries in the final test. Le present document repose sur une methodologie fondee sur la moyenne des pourcentages de reponses correctes. Il vise a determiner le rang que les pays auraient obtenu a l’evaluation PISA 2006 si le classement avait ete realise a partir des items consideres comme prioritaires par chaque pays. Sur les differents groupes d’items preferes des pays, les resultats montrent une coherence remarquable avec le classement reel qui figure dans le rapport initial PISA 2006 (OCDE, 2007). En moyenne, peu de pays gagnent ou perdent des places systematiquement. Etant donne que ces pays font partie d’un groupe de niveau moyen avec des resultats tres comparables, les decalages dans le classement s’accompagneraient probablement de changements mineurs dans la performance moyenne sur l’echelle finale PISA. L’analyse suggere que les classements PISA sont manifestement stables grâce a l’existence d’un vivier d’items de tests suffisamment important pour autoriser toutes les preferences. Ce document montre qu’il est important de fonder le choix des items de tests sur un processus bien structure, ce qui permet aux pays et aux experts de contribuer de la meme facon. Les observations presentees ici etablissent que pour PISA, le classement des pays selon les differents groupes d’items de premier choix est apparemment stable et les experts ne peuvent pas predire quels items pourraient gonfler la performance de leur pays dans les tests finals.

Analysis of PISA 2006 Preferred Items Ranking Using the Percent Correct Method