MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Do School‐Level Scores From Large‐Scale Assessments Really Measure?

2002· article· en· W2002384848 on OpenAlexaff
Fiore Sicoly

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Scale (ratio)Variance (accounting)PsychologyCognitionMeasure (data warehouse)Subject (documents)IllusionMathematics educationCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although assessments of mathematics, reading, and writing are assumed to measure distinct academic skills, this may be difficult owing to the pervasive influence of general ability on performance. Factor analyses of school‐level data from 14 large‐scale assessment programs revealed that 80% of the variance in mathematics, reading, and writing scores was due to a common, underlying factor. Multiple regression analyses confirmed that scores contribute little information that is unique to a particular subject (6% or less). Although different assessments may create the illusion of providing unique information, they may be tapping into generic cognitive abilities that cut across content areas. These results raise suspicions about the value and validity of interpretations based on school‐level subject area scores.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Measurement Issues and PracticeSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207