Measuring Numeracy: Validity and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)

Q3 Mathematics Numeracy Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.5038/1936-4660.13.2.1348
S. L. Tunstall
{"title":"Measuring Numeracy: Validity and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)","authors":"S. L. Tunstall","doi":"10.5038/1936-4660.13.2.1348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A tension raised in recent scholarship is that between numeracy as a social practice and numeracy as a functional skill set. Such frameworks for conceptualizing numeracy pose a challenge to assessment because what individuals do with numeracy is not the same as what individuals can do (or express) in an assessment setting. This study builds on work related to numeracy assessment through a validity examination of a portion of a well-known assessment: the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). In following a path set out by standards for assessment, I ask: What does the PIAAC numeracy assessment claim to measure? What are the intended uses of the assessment? How are we to interpret scores with those uses in mind? And to what degree do evidence and theory support interpretations for those uses? The main finding from this work is that while score interpretations from the PIAAC numeracy assessment may be valid for the use of describing proficiency distributions for specific groups, the construct of interest—numerate behavior—is not what is measured. Moreover, evidence distinguishing what is measured from other constructs, such as the OECD’s conception of literacy, is largely absent. This study contributes to existing literature on numeracy assessment by providing sources of evidence to consider in making judgments about validity for an assessment. It also suggests that, as scholars, we carefully hedge the ways that we talk about large-scale assessments, and in relation, what individuals can or cannot do based on results from such assessments.","PeriodicalId":36166,"journal":{"name":"Numeracy","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Numeracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.13.2.1348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A tension raised in recent scholarship is that between numeracy as a social practice and numeracy as a functional skill set. Such frameworks for conceptualizing numeracy pose a challenge to assessment because what individuals do with numeracy is not the same as what individuals can do (or express) in an assessment setting. This study builds on work related to numeracy assessment through a validity examination of a portion of a well-known assessment: the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). In following a path set out by standards for assessment, I ask: What does the PIAAC numeracy assessment claim to measure? What are the intended uses of the assessment? How are we to interpret scores with those uses in mind? And to what degree do evidence and theory support interpretations for those uses? The main finding from this work is that while score interpretations from the PIAAC numeracy assessment may be valid for the use of describing proficiency distributions for specific groups, the construct of interest—numerate behavior—is not what is measured. Moreover, evidence distinguishing what is measured from other constructs, such as the OECD’s conception of literacy, is largely absent. This study contributes to existing literature on numeracy assessment by providing sources of evidence to consider in making judgments about validity for an assessment. It also suggests that, as scholars, we carefully hedge the ways that we talk about large-scale assessments, and in relation, what individuals can or cannot do based on results from such assessments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测量计算能力:有效性和国际成人能力评估计划(PIAAC)
在最近的学术研究中,计算能力作为一种社会实践和计算能力作为一种功能技能之间的矛盾日益突出。这种概念化计算能力的框架对评估构成了挑战,因为个人对计算能力的处理与个人在评估环境中可以做(或表达)的不同。本研究通过对经合组织国际成人能力评估计划(PIAAC)的一部分有效性检查,建立在与计算能力评估相关的工作基础上。在遵循评估标准设定的路径时,我问:PIAAC计算能力评估声称要衡量什么?评估的预期用途是什么?我们该如何用这些用法来解释分数呢?证据和理论在多大程度上支持对这些用途的解释?这项工作的主要发现是,虽然PIAAC计算能力评估的分数解释对于描述特定群体的熟练程度分布可能是有效的,但兴趣-计算行为的构建并不是测量的对象。此外,与经合组织(OECD)的识字概念等其他概念相区别的测量结果在很大程度上是缺乏证据的。本研究通过为评估的有效性判断提供证据来源,对现有的计算能力评估文献做出了贡献。它还表明,作为学者,我们在谈论大规模评估时要小心谨慎,以及根据评估结果,个人能做什么或不能做什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Numeracy
Numeracy Mathematics-Mathematics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
DESKRIPSI KEMAMPUAN LITERASI MATEMATIKA MAHASISWA PGMI PEMBELAJARAN BERDEFERENSIASI BERBASIS PROBLEM POSING : SEBUAH KAJIAN KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN MATEMATIS PEMBELAJARAN BERDEFERENSIASI BERBASIS PROBLEM POSING : SEBUAH KAJIAN KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN MATEMATIS Infusing Quantitative Reasoning Skills into a Differential Equation Class in an Urban Public Community College Considering What Counts: Measuring Poverty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1