Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Bildungsforschung und Assessments

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Bildungsforschung

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften ((SRS))

  • 909 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Das Kapitel stellt typische Forschungsdesigns der quantitativen Bildungsforschung vor und beurteilt diese nach ihrer Aussagekraft sowie ihrer externen und internen Validität. Danach werden drei zentrale Herausforderungen bei der Auswertung von Daten in der quantitativen Bildungsforschung diskutiert (Messfehlerproblem, Mehrebenenstruktur, kausale Inferenz) und kurz die statistischen Methoden beschrieben, mit denen diese Probleme in der Regel adressiert werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., et al. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. In Lord & M. R. Novick (Hrsg.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (S. 395–479). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R. D., & Zimowski, M. F. (1997). Multiple group IRT. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Hrsg.), Handbook of modern item response theory (S. 433–448). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (1995). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., Prenzel, M., & Jäger, M. (2014). Educational research and evidence based educational policy. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(4), 3–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cafri, G., Hedeker, D., & Aarons, G. A. (2015). An introduction and integration of cross-classified, multiple membership, and dynamic group random-effects models. Psychological Methods. doi:10.1037/met0000043.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. P. (2005). Multilevel IRT model assessment. In L. A. van der Ark, M. A. Croon & K. Sijtsma (Hrsg.), New developments in categorical data analysis for the social and behavioral sciences (S. 227–252). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foy, P., Galia, J., & Li, I. (2009). Scaling the data from the TIMSS 2007 mathematics and science assessments. In J. F. Olson, M. O. Martin, & I. V. Mullis (Hrsg.), TIMSS 2007 Technical Report (revised edition, pp. 225-280). Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, P. P.-H., Acee, T., Chung, W.-H., Hsieh, Y.-P., Kim, H., Thomas, G. D., et al. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 523–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kultusministerkonferenz. (2015). Gesamtstrategie der Kultusministerkonferenz zum Bildungsmonitoring. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2015/2015_06_11-Gesamtstrategie-Bildungsmonitoring.pdf. Zugegriffen am 08.12.2015.

  • Lange, H. (2002). PISA: Und was nun? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 5, 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langeheine, R., & Rost, J. (2013). Latent trait and latent class models. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Kuramoto, S. J., & Stuart, E. A. (2013). An introduction to sensitivity analysis for unobserved confounding in nonexperimental prevention research. Prevention Science, 14, 570–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Welsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 58(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., et al. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47, 106–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. M. (2001). Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 1373–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencie’s for tomorrow’s world – Volume 1: analysis. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). PISA 2012. Technical report. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plewis, I., & Hurry, J. (1998). A multilevel perspective on the design and analysis of intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probalistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research (reprinted 1980 by University of Chicago Press: Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Paper presented at the proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Martinez, A., & Spybrook, J. (2007). Strategies for improving precision in group-randomized experiments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, A. L., Haring, S. H., Levin, J. R., Patall, E. A., & Robinson, D. H. (2013). Models of not-so-good behavior: Yet another way to squeeze causality and recommendations for practice out of correlational data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roßbach, G., & Maurice, J. v. (im Druck). Das Nationale Bildungspanel als wertvolle Ressource für die Bildungsforschung. In R. Tippelt & B. Schmidt-Hertha (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildungsforschung (4. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sälzer, C., Reiss, K., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Prenzel, M., & Heinze, A. (2013). Zwischen Grundlagenwissen und Anwendungsbezug: Mathematische Kompetenz im internationalen Vergleich. In M. Prenzel, C. Sälzer, E. Klieme & O. Köller (Hrsg.), PISA 2012: Fortschritte und Herausforderungen in Deutschland (S. 47–97). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2. Aufl.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyer, R. (2001). Classical test theory. In C. Ragin & T. Cook (Hrsg.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences. Logic of inquiry and research design (S. 481–520). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, E. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., & Rost, J. (2007). Mixture distribution item response models. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Hrsg.), Handbook of statistics: Psychometrics (Bd. 26, S. 643–661). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful? IERI Monograph Series, 2, 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W., Rose, N., Dicke, A.-L., Neumann, M., & Trautwein, U. (2014). Alle alles lehren–chulleistungen in Englisch, Mathematik und den Naturwissenschaften vor und nach der Neuordnung der gymnasialen Oberstufe in Sachsen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, 345–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook. Version 3.0. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf. Zugegriffen am 08.12.2015.

  • Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hector-Institut für Empirische Bildungsforschung, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Deutschland

    Benjamin Nagengast & Norman Rose

Authors
  1. Benjamin Nagengast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norman Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Benjamin Nagengast or Norman Rose .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. München, Germany

    Rudolf Tippelt

  2. Instit.f.Erziehungswissenschaft, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this entry

Cite this entry

Nagengast, B., Rose, N. (2016). Quantitative Bildungsforschung und Assessments. In: Tippelt, R., Schmidt-Hertha, B. (eds) Handbuch Bildungsforschung. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-20002-6_28-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-20002-6_28-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-20002-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Erziehungswissenschaft und Soziale Arbeit

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation