Book chapter
Теория измерений как основа для выявления родства науки и искусства
С. 2894-2901.
We use cookies in order to improve the quality and usability of the HSE website. More information about the use of cookies is available here, and the regulations on processing personal data can be found here. By continuing to use the site, you hereby confirm that you have been informed of the use of cookies by the HSE website and agree with our rules for processing personal data. You may disable cookies in your browser settings.
School climate is a significant factor of educational achievement. However, relevant research in Russia is difficult due to the absence of instruments. The paper peeks into the history of the notion of school climate, discussing approaches to defining the term. It also describes the most widespread questionnaires used to measure school climate and provides an analysis of their components. The empirical study is based on the student questionnaire used by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which should ideally allow measuring a number of school climate aspects. A psychometric analysis based on the methods of confirmatory factor analysis and modern test theory reveals that the structure of school climate indices is different from what questionnaire designers expected it to be. It can not be clearly determined whether the questions reflect the school climate indicators that the questionnaires were supposed to measure. Some statements are worded in such a way that most school students should either agree or disagree with them, without showing any difference in their attitude toward the subject. The scale is unbalanced for the majority of items. The article suggests making some specific steps to improve this instrument
In authors' previous paper published in 2011 in «Control Sciences» journal one example of a bi-criterion decision analysis problem demonstrating that the use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) may lead to a clearly erroneous result is given. However, the author of another paper published in 2012 in the same journal suggested that he found an error in our use of AHP and, consequently, our criticism of AHP is unsubstantiated. In this new paper the authors show that there was no mistake in the use of AHP in their original counter-example, and provide two further counter-examples that support their original conclusion.