Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:00:33.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing Measurement Error in Student Achievement Estimation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michela Battauz,
Ruggero Bellio and
Enrico Gori
Michela Battauz*
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Udine
Ruggero Bellio
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Udine
Enrico Gori
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Udine
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Michela Battauz, University of Udine, Department of Statistics, Via Treppo 18, 33100 Udine, Italy. E-mail: battauz@dss.uniud.it
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The achievement level is a variable measured with error, that can be estimated by means of the Rasch model. Teacher grades also measure the achievement level but they are expressed on a different scale. This paper proposes a method for combining these two scores to obtain a synthetic measure of the achievement level based on the theory developed for regression with covariate measurement error. In particular, the focus is on ordinal scaled grades, using the SIMEX method for measurement error correction. The result is a measure comparable across subjects with smaller measurement error variance. An empirical application illustrates the method.

Keywords

maximum likelihood estimationmeasurement errorRasch modelteacher gradeSIMEX

Information

Type
Theory and Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , June 2008, pp. 289 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aitkin, M., & Rocci, R. (2002). A general maximum likelihood analysis of measurement error in generalized linear models. Statistics and Computing, 12, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E., & Cox, D.R. (1994). Inference and asymptotics, London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D.J., & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Test scores, sufficient statistics, and the information structures of tests. In Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Greene, W.F., & Cai, J. (2004). Measurement error in covariates in the marginal hazards model for multivariate failure time data. Biometrics, 60, 987–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, R.J., Küchenhoff, H., Lombard, F., & Stefanski, L.A. (1996). Asymptotics for the SIMEX estimator in nonlinear measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R.J., Ruppert, D., Stefanski, L.A., & Crainiceanu, C. (2006). Measurement error in nonlinear models, (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casella, G., Berger, R.L. (2002). Statistical inference, (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Chesher, A. (1991). The effect of measurement error. Biometrika, 78, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J., & Stefanski, L.A. (1994). A simulation extrapolation method for parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 1314–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, W.A. (1987). Measurement error models, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H., & Thomas, S. (1996). Using examination results as indicators of school and college performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 159, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, F. (1988). A method of moderation of school-based assessments: some statistical considerations. The Statistician, 37, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoijtink, H., & Boomsma, A. (1995). On person parameter estimation in the dichotomous Rasch model. In Fischer, G.H., & Molenaar, I.W. (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments and applications, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Levin-Koh, S.C., & Amemiya, Y. (2003). Heteroscedastic factor analysis. Biometrika, 90, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I.W. (1995). Some background for item response theory and the Rasch model. In Fischer, G.H., Molenaar, I.W. (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments and applications, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Muthén, B.O. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical and continuous latent indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Shi, J.Q., & Lee, S.Y. (2000). Latent variable models with mixed continuous and polytomous data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 62, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Stefanski, L.A., & Cook, J.R. (1995). Simulation-extrapolation: The measurement error jackknife. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1247–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekwe, C.D., Carter, R.L., Ma, C.X., Algina, J., Lucas, M.E., Roth, J., Ariet, M., Fisher, T., & Resnick, M.B. (2004). An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N., Lin, X., Gutierrez, R.G., & Carroll, R.J. (1998). Bias analysis and SIMEX approach in generalized linear mixed measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, G., Yang, M., Goldstein, H., & Rasbash, J. (1996). Adjusting for measurement error in multilevel analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 159, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar