scholarly journals Measuring financial literacy with a Situational Judgement Test: do some groups really perform worse or is it the measuring instrument?

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eveline Wuttke ◽  
Christin Siegfried ◽  
Carmela Aprea
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Financial Literacy ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Migration Background ◽  
Test Bias ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Opportunities To Learn ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Situational Judgement

AbstractDue to current trends in society and economy, financial literacy is often considered as an important twenty-first century skill. However, regardless of the postulated relevance, studies suggest that financial illiteracy seems to be a widespread phenomenon in the population of many nations. Some studies also show that some groups perform particularly poorly (e.g. women, persons with migration background and/or low level of education). These differences are often attributed to different individual characteristics such as abilities, dispositions or socialisation patterns. However, available research also suggests that even after controlling for them, a quite large portion of the performance differences between the various groups of test-takers remains unexplained. One explanation for performance gaps in financial literacy might be that differences in test scores could also be evoked by the test instruments itself and may thus, at least in part, be interpreted as testing bias. In this paper, we present a newly developed Situational Judgement Test, which is focused on financial competence. For this test, we examine whether differences between groups are attributable to individual differences or due to a test bias. To analyse a possible test bias, we tested one facet of financial literacy (with three factors: control of one’s financial situation, budgeting and handling of money) related to everyday money management for measuring invariance for different groups. If measuring invariance could be assumed, we analysed group differences by calculating t-tests. Results show that two factors of the test show measurement invariance for all groups considered (gender, migration and educational background, opportunities to learn). Group comparisons are thus possible and potential differences are not due to a test bias. For one factor, we can only assume measurement invariance for the group with/without migration background and with/without opportunities to learn in financial topics. When we look at group differences, we find that in contrast to the findings of many previous studies, the analysis of the mean differences does not show any systematic deficits in financial literacy for specific groups.

Spearman’s Hypothesis in the Vietnam Experience Study and National Longitudinal Survey of Youth ‘79

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Lasker ◽  
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard ◽  
Helmuth Nyborg
Keyword(s):  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Weak Form ◽  
Longitudinal Survey ◽  
Test Bias ◽  
Pass Rate ◽  
National Longitudinal Survey ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Cognitive Differences ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

There are few empirically derived theories explaining group differences in cognitive ability. Spearman's hypothesis is one such theory which holds that group differences are a function of a given test's relationship to general intelligence, g. Research into this hypothesis has generally been limited to the application of a single method lacking sensitivity, specificity, and the ability to assess test bias: Jensen’s method of correlated vectors. In order to overcome the resulting empirical gap, we applied three different psychometrically sound methods to examine the hypothesis among American blacks and whites in the Vietnam Experience Study (VES) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY ‘79). We first used multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to assess bias and evaluate the hypothesis directly; we found that strict factorial invariance was tenable in both samples and either the strong or the weak form of the hypothesis was supported, with 87 and 78% of the group differences attributable to g in the VES and NLSY ’79 respectively. Using item response theory metrics to avoid pass rate confounding, a strong relationship between g loadings and group differences (r = 0.80 and 0.79) was observed. Finally, assessing differential item functioning with item level data revealed that a handful of items functioned differently, but their removal did not affect gap sizes much beyond what would be expected from shortening tests, and assessing the effect this had on scores using an anchoring method, the differential functioning was found to be negligible in size. In aggregate, results supported Spearman's hypothesis but not test bias as an explanation for the cognitive differences between the groups we studied.

The History and Current Status of Testing Across Cultures and Countries

2016 ◽  
pp. 14-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ype H. Poortinga ◽  
Eckhard Klieme
Keyword(s):  
Racial Differences ◽  
Test Score ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Bias ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Statistical Procedures ◽  
Narrative Account

Chapter 2 gives a narrative account of the use of tests across countries and cultures over the course of nearly a century. Initially, differences in test score distributions were usually interpreted at face value, independent of the cultural and educational background of test takers. Findings of group differences in the domain of intelligence were seen as a confirmation of widely held beliefs, also among psychologists, about racial differences. Soon implicit assumptions to the effect that tests can be culture-free or culture-fair were challenged. The cross-cultural equivalence of tests became an issue for conceptual and, especially, for psychometric analysis. This line of work has resulted in a large array of methods and statistical procedures for identifying cultural bias in items and tests. The concluding section of the chapter envisages further improvements in the quality of instruments for cross-cultural usage, notably through the use of international teams of authors in test development.

scholarly journals Situational judgement test validity for selection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. 888-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elin S. Webster ◽  
Lewis W. Paton ◽  
Paul E. S. Crampton ◽  
Paul A. Tiffin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Test Validity ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Situational Judgement

Culture as a determinant of option choice in a situational judgement test: A new look

2018 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Schmitt ◽  
Joshua J. Prasad ◽  
Ann Marie Ryan ◽  
Jacob C. Bradburn ◽  
Christopher D. Nye
Keyword(s):  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Situational Judgement ◽  
New Look

scholarly journals PERBEDAAN PERILAKU KERJA INOVATIF BERDASARKAN KARAKTERISTIK INDIVIDU KARYAWAN

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 107
Author(s):  
Arum Etikariena
Keyword(s):  
Demographic Data ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Work Behavior ◽  
Work Behaviors ◽  
Current Position ◽  
Innovative Work Behavior ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Innovative Work ◽  
Measuring Tool

In recent years, research on innovation in organizations, particularly innovative work behaviors, has developed considerably. The objective of the study were to examine the role of individual characteristics such as age, gender, educational background, ethnic’s background, tenure and length in current position which presumably would have an impact on the formation of innovative work behaviors. The study is quantitative study with non-experimental design, conducted on 279 respondents working in a Syariah Bank and a television company. The measuring tool used is the Innovative Work Behavior Scale. Demographic data were asked to be completed in the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using t-test, one-way Anova, and crosstabs analysis. The results show that innovative work behavior differs significantly based on age (χ2(3, 276) = 17.54; p < .001), educational background (χ2 (4, 275) = 8.18; p = .04), and tenure (χ2(2, 277) = 6.98; p = 0.03), but has no significant difference based on gender (χ2(2, 277) = 1.68; p = .20), ethnic background (χ2(13, 266) = 8.12; p = .78) and length in the current position (χ2(3, 276) = 3.81; p = .15). Thus, the results of this study will contribute to enrich the knowledge about innovative work behavior in Indonesia. Furthermore, this result will also be a consideration for dealing with employees to encourage innovative work behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document