Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/263468 
Year of Publication: 
2022
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 15252
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
Empirical studies in the economics of education, the measurement of skill gaps across demographic groups, and the impacts of interventions on skill formation rely on psychometrically validated test scores that record the proportion of items correctly answered. Test scores are sometimes taken as measures of an invariant scale of human capital that can be compared over time and people. We show that for a prototypical test, invariance is violated. We use an unusually rich data set from an early childhood intervention program that measures knowledge of narrowly defined skills on essentially equivalent subsets of tasks. We examine if conventional, broadly-defined measures of skill are the same across people who are comparable on detailed knowledge measures. We reject the hypothesis of aggregate scale invariance and call into question the uncritical use of test scores in research on education and on skill formation. We compare different measures of skill and ability and reject the hypothesis of valid aggregate measures of skill.
Subjects: 
testing child development
psychometrics
measurement of discrimination
human capital
demographic economics
JEL: 
I21
C81
J71
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.