General comparison of international, regional, national assessments
International Assessments |
Regional Assessments |
National Assessments |
|
Comparability over time | Mostly high. | Mostly high.
Only comparable for the last 2 cycles. |
Could be high if rigorous methods. |
Comparability between countries | High within each program.
Relatively easy to equate across programs. More could be done. |
Almost as high within each program.
Less easy to equate across programs. Differences across programs in selected grades complicates comparisons. |
Low.
Variety of sampled populations, methodologies, interference by governments, lack of documentation, often lack of equating over time. |
Timeliness of the statistics | One year lag with respect to cycle. | Varies – one to four years. | Would vary by country, but likely to be timelier than any cross-national program. |
Scope for public buy-in and policy impact | Results highly influential.
Assessments seen as fair and independent and allow for international comparisons. |
Results highly influential.
Concerns around accuracy of statistics and transparency of methods. |
If rigorous, results will influence curriculum design and teacher training.
If not, results not taken seriously or risk using weak information to inform policy. |
Scope for national capacity building | Limited (restricted to learning by doing).
Paired with more explicit training in the different stages of the assessment cycle. |
Regional nature of the program increases countries’ direct involvement in technical aspects. | Large role in building capacity at the national level if country experts have access to good materials and training programs. |
Alignment to the MPL | There is agreement about the levels that align to the MPL although it should be completed with a standard-setting exercise that precisely identifies the MPL in each case. | Could use AMPL to align to the global MPL |
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Based on: Gustafsson, M. (2019). Costs and Benefits of Different Approaches to Measuring