Statistical analysis of the aggregated rating of russian universities as a measuring tool
Abstract
In our country, there are several ratings of universities in the field of education, classifying them according to the quality of education. These ratings differ in their goals and approaches to determining what the quality of education is. To combine these approaches, the National Accreditation Agency in the Field of education is developing national aggregated ratings of higher education institutions. The purpose of this work is to provide a statistical analysis of the aggregated ranking of universities in 2021 on the quality of education as a measuring tool. Statistical analysis of the aggregated rating as a measuring tool is carried out within the framework of the theory of latent variables. The aggregated rating is considered as a latent variable, the indicators of which are the eight national ratings. The constructive validity of the aggregated rating is determined. The quality of education in universities was measured on a linear scale. The aggregated rating has more differentiating ability compared to the traditional scoring system. The ratings that differentiate universities with low and high quality of education better than other national ratings are determined. The ratings that are most and least adequate to the measurement model are also shown. A joint analysis of all ratings carried out within the framework of the theory of latent variables made it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each rating. Quality of education in universities is measured on a linear scale; this is important for monitoring and using many methods of statistical analysis involving a linear scale. An important advantage of using the theory of latent variables is the high differentiating ability of universities. It is planned to monitor the universities’ quality of education within the framework of the theory of latent variables.
Downloads
References
2. Hou Y. W., Jacob W. J. (2017) What Contributes More to the Ranking of Higher Education Institutions? A Comparison of Three World University Rankings. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives. Vol. 16. No 4. P. 29–46.
3. Kusumastuti D., Idrus N. (2017) Nurturing Quality of Higher Education through National Ranking: A Potential Empowerment Model for Developing Countries. Quality in Higher Education. Vol. 23. Iss. 3. P. 230–248.
4. Gaisenok V. A., Naumovich O. A., Samokhval V. V. (2018) Correlations of university positions in international rankings. Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27. No. 12. P. 20–28. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
5. Zadorozhnyuk I. E., Korosteleva L. Yu. Tebiev B. K. (2019) TOP–200 universities in four international rankings. Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 85–95. DOI (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
6. Matveeva O. A. (2019) Development of voluntary accreditation of educational programs in Russia. Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 28. No. 7. P. 19–28. DOI (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
7. Seeram Ramakrishna, Sachsenmeier Peter (2019) Shortcomings of Higher Education Evaluation Systems. International Journal of Chinese Education. Vol. 8. 1. P. 25–42.
8. Ryan M., Allen A. (2017) Comparison of China’s “Ivy League” to Other Peer Groupings Through Global University Rankings. Journal of Studies in International Education. Vol. 21. 5. P. 395–411.
9. Solomon Arulraj David, Motala Shireen (2017) Can BRICS build ivory towers of excellence? Giving new meaning to world-class universities. Research in Comparative and International Education. Vol. 12. 4. P. 512–528.
10. Fisher Nicholas I. (2022) Assessing the Quality of Universities: A Gedankenexperiment Derived from Creating Stakeholder Value. Journal of Creating Value. Vol. 8. 1. P. 25–44.
11. Navodnov V. G., Motova G. N., Ryzhakova O. E. (2019) Comparison of international ratings and the results of Russian monitoring of the effectiveness of universities by the method of league analysis. Educational Studies. no. 3. P. 130–151. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
12. Bolotov V. A. [et al.] (2016) Key Issues of Development of National and Regional Systems of Education Quality Assessment (Expert Review). Moscow : Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. 232 p. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
13. Bolotov V. A. (2018) The Past, Present, and Possible Future of the Russian Education Assessment System. Educational Studies. No. 3. P. 287– 297. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) DOI
14. Andrich D., Marais I. (2019) A course in Rasch measurement theory: Measuring in the educational, social and health sciences. Singapore : Springer. 482 p.
15. Bond, T. G., Yan Z., Heene M. (2020) Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd Ed. New York : Routledge. 376 p.
16. Leus O., Maslak A. (2018) Measurement and Analysis of Teachers’ Professional Performance. Society, integration, education : Proceeding of the International Scientific Conference. Vol. II, Higher Education (Rezekne May 25th–26th, 2018, Rezekne : Rezekne Academy of Technologies, P. 308–319.
17. Maslak A., Pozdniakov S. (2018) Measurement and Multifactorial Analysis of Students’ Patriotism. Society, integration, education. Proceeding of the International Scientific Conference. Vol. I, Higher Education, May 25th–26th, 2018). Rezekne : Rezekne Academy of Technologies. P. 373–383.
18. Maslak A. A. [et al.] (2017) Investigation of measurement precision of latent variable depending on the range of variation of indicators set. Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control. № 1 (40). P. 42–49. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
19. Osipov S. A., Maslak A. A. (2011) Estimation of the parameters of the Rasch model by the method of paired comparisons. Theory and practice of measuring competencies and other latent variables in education. Proceedings of All-Russia (with international participation) scientific- practical conf. XV (03–05 February 2011) and XVI (01 – 03 July 2011). Slavyansk-on-Kuban : Publishing House SSPI P. 65–72. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
20. Andrich D., Sheridan B., Luo G. (2005) RUMM2020: Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Models software and manual. Perth, Australia – RUMM Laboratory. 87 p.
Условия передачи авторских прав in English
