Premium
Measuring standards in primary English: The validity of PIRLS—a response to Mary Hilton
Author(s) -
Whetton Chris,
Twist Liz,
Sainsbury Marian
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
british educational research journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.171
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1469-3518
pISSN - 0141-1926
DOI - 10.1080/01411920701657082
Subject(s) - reading (process) , construct (python library) , construct validity , psychology , diversity (politics) , sample (material) , literacy , external validity , cultural diversity , raising (metalworking) , social psychology , test validity , sociology , social science , pedagogy , political science , law , psychometrics , developmental psychology , anthropology , chemistry , chromatography , computer science , programming language , geometry , mathematics
Hilton (2006) criticises the PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) tests and the survey conduct, raising questions about the validity of international surveys of reading. Her criticisms fall into four broad areas: cultural validity, methodological issues, construct validity and the survey in England. However, her criticisms are shown to be mistaken. Her claim of forced unidimensionality in the tests is not supported by statistical analyses and her claims of cultural strangeness are contradicted by the involvement of all the countries involved. She is concerned about linguistic diversity but this is actually reflected in the ways countries organise their surveys. Finally, Hilton suggests that the English sample was biased, but fails to recognise the stringent sampling requirements or the monitoring roles of external assessors and the sampling referee. A careful study of the evidence concerning PIRLS shows that it is actually a fair and robust measure of reading attainment in different countries.