Contrasting conceptions of comparability
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11482802 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul E Newton (0000-0001-7636-057X, Cambridge Assessment Network Division, Assessment Research and Development, Cambridge Assessment, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 285-292 |
| Publication date | 2010-09-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research Papers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0267-1522 • E-ISSN: 1470-1146 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02671522.2010.498144 |
| OpenAlex | W2068642711 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 8 |
Robert Coe has claimed that three broad conceptions of comparability can be identified from the literature: performance, statistical and conventional. Each of these he rejected, in favour of a single, integrated conception which relies upon the notion of a ‘linking construct’ and which he termed ‘construct comparability’. Traditional frameworks for conceptualising comparability are undoubtedly limited. However, rather than rejecting their insights, a more fruitful approach is to reinterpret them. A new framework for conceptualising comparability makes more sense of traditional distinctions and helps to make sense of similarities and differences between linking constructs
Comparability · Construct (python library · Epistemology · Sociology · Complex Systems and Decision Making · Computer Science · Mathematics · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.21 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2012 - 2024 (13) |
| Highly cited | No |