How Robust Are Cross‐Country Comparisons of PISA Scores to the Scaling Model Used?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an important international study of 15‐olds' knowledge and skills. New results are released every 3 years, and have a substantial impact upon education policy. Yet, despite its influence, the methodology underpinning PISA has received significant criticism. Much of this criticism has focused upon the psychometric scaling model used to create the proficiency scores. The aim of this article is to therefore investigate the robustness of cross‐country comparisons of PISA scores to subtle changes to the underlying scaling model used. This includes the specification of the item‐response model, whether the difficulty and discrimination of items are allowed to vary across countries (item‐by‐country interactions) and how test questions not reached by pupils are treated. Our key finding is that these technical choices make little substantive difference to the overall country‐level results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.175 | 0.521 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".