Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 56–76 | Cite as

Easier analysis and better reporting: Modelling ordinal data in mathematics education research

  • Brian Doig
  • Susie Groves


This paper presents an examination of the use of Rasch modelling in a major research project,Improving Middle Years Mathematics and Science (IMYMS). The project has generated both qualitative and quantitative data, with much of the qualitative data being ordinal in nature. Reporting the results of analyses for a range of audiences necessitates careful, well-designed report formats. Some useful new report formats based on Rasch modelling—the Modified Variable Map, the Ordinal Map, the Threshold Map, and the Annotated Ordinal Map—are illustrated using data from the IMYMS project. The Rasch analysis and the derived reporting formats avoid the pitfalls that exist when working with ordinal data and provide insights into the respondents’ views about their experiences in schools unavailable by other approaches.


Item Difficulty Student Perception Ordinal Data Interval Scale Secondary Student 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, R. J., & Khoo, S.-T. (1996). Quest: The interactive test analysis system (Version 2) [Computer Software]. Melbourne: ACER.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, F. B. (2001).The basics of Item Response Theory (2nd ed.). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  3. Beltyukova, S. A., & Fox, C. M. (2004). Equating student satisfaction measures.Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(1), 62–69.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001).Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Doig, B. (2001).Summing up: Australian numeracy performances, practices, programs and possibilities. Melbourne: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  6. Doig, B. (2003).Quality learning communities: Effective practices in the Middle Years of schooling. (Report prepared for the Middle Years Pedagogy Research and Development Project). Melbourne: Deakin University Consultancy and Development Unit.Google Scholar
  7. Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2005). Reason for hope: Primary students’ mathematics learning environment. In Novotná, J. (Ed.),Proceedings of the International Symposium Elementary Maths Teaching (pp. 100–107). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University.Google Scholar
  8. Doig, B., Groves, S., Tytler, R., & Gough, A. (2005). Primary and secondary mathematics practice: How different is it? In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.),Building connections: Theory, research and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Melbourne, Vol. 1, pp. 305–312). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  9. Gough, A., & Tytler, R. (2001). Researching effective teaching and learning in science: The Science in Schools research project. InCrossing borders: New frontiers in education research (Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education, AARE 2001 International Education Research Conference, pp. 1–4). Fremantle, WA: AARE.Google Scholar
  10. Groves, S., & Doig, B. (2002). Developing conceptual understanding: the role of the task in communities of mathematical inquiry. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.),Proceedings of the 26th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 25–32). Norwich, UK: PME.Google Scholar
  11. Haertel, E. H. (2004).The behavior of linking items in test equating. Los Angeles: CRESST/Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Kolen, M. J. (1999). Equating of tests. In G. N. Masters & J. P. Keeves (Eds.),Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment (pp. 164–185). Amsterdam: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.Archives of psychology (Number 140).Google Scholar
  14. Masters, G. N. (1988). Partial Credit model. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.),Educational research, methodology, and measurement (pp. 292–297). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. Norusis, M. J. (1990).SPSS base system user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
  16. Rasch, G. (1960).Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Expanded Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Siegal, S. (1956).Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (International Student Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Thorkildsen, T. A. (2005).Fundamentals of measurement in applied research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  19. Tytler, R., Waldrip, B., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Windows into practice: Constructing effective science teaching and learning in a school change initiative.International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). Children’s perspectives of the mathematics classroom. In J. Novotná (Ed.),Proceedings of the International Symposium Elementary Maths Teaching (pp. 23 - 33). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University.Google Scholar
  21. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982).Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Doig
    • 1
  • Susie Groves
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationDeakin UniversityBurwood

Personalised recommendations