Search

This paper investigates the phenomena of overclaiming – the propensity for individuals to claim more knowledge about an issue or topic than they really (or could possibly) do. Using Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data from nine Anglophone countries and over 40,000 young people, we examine teenagers' propensity to claim knowledge of three mathematics constructs that do not really exist. We find substantial differences in young people's tendency to overclaim across countries, genders, and socio-economic groups. Those who are most likely to overclaim are also found to exhibit high levels of overconfidence and believe they work hard, persevere at tasks, and are popular amongst their peers. Together this provides important new insight into overclaiming, how this differs across groups, and how it relates to other psychological constructs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The paper investigates whether students' ability relative to their school peers is linked to overclaiming. • Being higher achieving than one's school peers is found to be linked to overclaiming. • Effect sizes are relatively modest at around 0.1 standard deviations. Using the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study, we investigate whether students' relative ability in mathematics (in comparison to their school peers) is linked to their tendency to overclaim. Although the estimated effect size is modest (around 0.1 standard deviations) we find empirical support that being a big fish in a small pond is linked to overclaiming, with this robust to different analytic approaches and model specifications. Thus, being one of the highest academic achievers within a school may push young people's beliefs in their own abilities too far, straying into overconfidence and making claims about their knowledge and skills that they cannot justify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International large-scale assessments such as PISA are increasingly being used to benchmark the academic performance of young people across the world. Yet many of the technicalities underpinning these datasets are misunderstood by applied researchers, who sometimes fail to take their complex sample and test designs into account. The aim of this paper is to generate a better understanding among economists about how such databases are created, and what this implies for the empirical methodologies one should (or should not) apply. We explain how some of the modeling strategies preferred by economists seem to be at odds with the complex test design, and provide clear advice on the types of robustness tests that are therefore needed when analyzing these datasets. In doing so, we hope to generate a better understanding of international large-scale education databases, and promote better practice in their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]