Policymakers expect international educational assessments to report credible national and international changes in student achievement over time. However, international assessment projects face great methodological challenges to creating comparable scores across jurisdictions and time points, fundamentally because jurisdictions vary in many aspects of curriculum and curriculum change as well as in the patterns of students’ test-taking behaviour. Using data from the Second IEA Mathematics Study (SIMS), the study reported in this dissertation addresses the potential impact of the different equating methodologies used in current international assessments on the accurate estimates of change in jurisdiction achievement over time. The results of the study demonstrate that the different equating methodologies implemented through the Item Response Theory (IRT) models currently used in international assessments may be of limited use in estimating change in jurisdiction achievement over time. This is because the international assessment data violate the IRT model assumptions, in particular the unidimensionality assumption. In addition, the estimation of jurisdiction results based on a common international scale may potentially distort the results of those jurisdictions that have levels of student achievement that are much lower or higher than most other participating jurisdictions. The findings of this study have important implications for researchers as well as policy makers.

Policymakers expect international educational assessments to report credible national and international changes in student achievement over time. However, international assessment projects face great methodological challenges to creating comparable scores across jurisdictions and time points, fundamentally because jurisdictions vary in many aspects of curriculum and curriculum change as well as in the patterns of students’ test-taking behaviour. Using data from the Second IEA Mathematics Study (SIMS), the study reported in this dissertation addresses the potential impact of the different equating methodologies used in current international assessments on the accurate estimates of change in jurisdiction achievement over time. The results of the study demonstrate that the different equating methodologies implemented through the Item Response Theory (IRT) models currently used in international assessments may be of limited use in estimating change in jurisdiction achievement over time. This is because the international assessment data violate the IRT model assumptions, in particular the unidimensionality assumption. In addition, the estimation of jurisdiction results based on a common international scale may potentially distort the results of those jurisdictions that have levels of student achievement that are much lower or higher than most other participating jurisdictions. The findings of this study have important implications for researchers as well as policy makers.

Tout au long de l’histoire de la littérature française et anglaise, la figure de Mahomet a fait l’objet de plusieurs Vies. Dès le Moyen Âge, l’intérêt se concentre autour de la représentation légendaire de ce personnage. Au XVIIe siècle, Humphrey Prideaux publie en anglais une Vie de Mahomet dans un contexte où le thème des « trois imposteurs » était fort prégnant. Plus tard Boulainvilliers suivi de Lamartine rédigeront eux aussi une biographie du prophète de l’Islam. Ces trois principales Vies seront au cœur de notre corpus. S’il existe de nombreuses études sur la représentation légendaire de Mahomet durant la période médiévale, il n’existe encore aucune étude d’ensemble sur la tradition intertextuelle dans laquelle s’inscrivent l’ensemble des Vies de Mahomet publiées en Europe entre le XVIIe et le XIXe siècle. Cette thèse propose de combler cette lacune en mettant en lumière les principales mutations subies par la biographie de Mahomet dans certaines versions occidentales entre le Moyen Âge et le XIXe siècle.La première partie débute par une réflexion sur le genre des Vies et présente celle du prophète de l’Islam qui fait office de texte de référence dans le monde arabo-musulman : la Sîra. Elle souligne, par ailleurs, la singularité de la tradition intertextuelle dans laquelle s’inscrivent la plupart des Vies de Mahomet rédigées en Occident. Une attention particulière est accordée aux motivations de leurs auteurs liées le plus souvent aux contextes historiques et littéraires. La seconde partie décrit les procédés littéraires utilisés par nos auteurs ayant eu pour effet de discréditer la mission prophétique du prophète. Recours à des traductions erronées du Coran, inventions, déformations de certains récits, aucun moyen n’a été épargné en vue de souligner le caractère fallacieux de sa prophétie. La troisième partie confronte la figure de Mahomet à celle de Jésus et de Moïse. Pour faire valoir que le Coran n’a pu être rédigé par nul autre que le prophète de l’Islam. Nos auteurs ont pris soin de comparer certains pans de la vie de ces trois hommes en mettant en valeur ce qui les distingua. Au terme de notre étude nous avons tenté de montrer que l’ensemble des Vies de Mahomet rédigées en Europe s’inscrivent dans une tradition intertextuelle qui puise ses origines dans les écrits latins datant de la période médiévale. Cette thèse voudrait contribuer à une histoire des modes de pensée et de transmission des textes. / Throughout the history of French and English literature, the figure of Mahomet has been the object of several Lives. From the Middle Ages onwards, interest is centered on the representation of Mahomet as a legendary figure. In the 17th century, Humphrey Prideaux published a Live in a context where the theme of the “three impostors” was predominant. Later, Boulainvilliers and then Lamartine would draft a biography of the prophet of Islam. If there are numerous studies on the legendary representation of Mahomet during medieval period, there is still no general study on the intertextual tradition which joins all the Lives all the Lives of Mahomet published in Europe between the 17th and the 19th century. This thesis suggests this gap by bringing to light the main transformations undergone by the biography of Mahomet in certain western versions between the Middle Ages and the 19th century. The first part begins with a reflection on the genre of the Lives and presents the Live of prophet of Islam that acts as reference text in the Arab-Muslim world: Sîra. It underlines, besides, the particularity of the intertextual tradition which joins most of the Lives of Mahomet written in West. A particular attention is granted to the motivations of their authors bound mostly to the historic and literary contexts.The second part describes the literary processes used by our authors having had the effect of compromising the prophetic mission of the prophet. Resort to erroneous translations of the Koran, the inventions, the deformations of some accounts, no means was saved to underline the deceptive aspect of his prophecy.The third part confronts the figure of Mahomet to the one of Jesus and Moses. To point out that the Koran was not able to be written by none other that the prophet of the Islam. Our authors took care of comparing some episodes of the life of these three men by emphasizing what distinguished them. In the term of our study, we tried to show that all the Lives of Mahomet drafted in Europe join in an intertextual tradition which draws its origins from the Latin texts dating medieval period. This thesis would want to contribute to a history of the ways of thinking and transmission of texts.

“Homeostatic beliefs” (HBs) denote a sense that one’s life path will remain stable in the long-term despite short-term disruptions. Two studies have been undertaken to explore whether HBs exist independent of other constructs, and to develop a scale with which to measure them. In Study 1, 158 undergraduate students completed a draft HB scale and theoretically related scales. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed with correlational and regression analyses: HBs are most strongly related to, but not redundant with, optimism, trait extraversion, and satisfaction with life. Using exploratory factor analysis, a six-item HB scale was derived. Study 2 is in progress, and will assess the construct validity of the HB scale by attempting to manipulate HBs to possibly influence individuals’ reactions to a mortality salience manipulation. We hypothesize that high HBs may buffer individuals from transient disrupting stimuli such as a mortality salience cue.

Global life satisfaction is the evaluation of one’s life among important domains. Therefore, importance ratings should improve the relation between domain satisfaction and life satisfaction. However, this is not the case because studies have shown that importance ratings do not improve the model. This study examined the validity of importance and satisfaction measures using a multi-method approach. 316 participants were recruited in friendship pairs to fill out a series of questionnaires about themselves and their friend. Based on the self-informant agreement scores, there is some validity in importance and the satisfaction ratings. The importance measures for some domains also predicted people’s behavioural patterns. Indirect importance ratings were also extracted using regression and correlational analysis. In conclusion, there was also evidence for convergent validity of the direct and indirect importance measures. Therefore, people do think about the important domains to some extent when making a global life satisfaction judgment.

Global life satisfaction is the evaluation of one’s life among important domains. Therefore, importance ratings should improve the relation between domain satisfaction and life satisfaction. However, this is not the case because studies have shown that importance ratings do not improve the model. This study examined the validity of importance and satisfaction measures using a multi-method approach. 316 participants were recruited in friendship pairs to fill out a series of questionnaires about themselves and their friend. Based on the self-informant agreement scores, there is some validity in importance and the satisfaction ratings. The importance measures for some domains also predicted people’s behavioural patterns. Indirect importance ratings were also extracted using regression and correlational analysis. In conclusion, there was also evidence for convergent validity of the direct and indirect importance measures. Therefore, people do think about the important domains to some extent when making a global life satisfaction judgment.

“Homeostatic beliefs” (HBs) denote a sense that one’s life path will remain stable in the long-term despite short-term disruptions. Two studies have been undertaken to explore whether HBs exist independent of other constructs, and to develop a scale with which to measure them. In Study 1, 158 undergraduate students completed a draft HB scale and theoretically related scales. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed with correlational and regression analyses: HBs are most strongly related to, but not redundant with, optimism, trait extraversion, and satisfaction with life. Using exploratory factor analysis, a six-item HB scale was derived. Study 2 is in progress, and will assess the construct validity of the HB scale by attempting to manipulate HBs to possibly influence individuals’ reactions to a mortality salience manipulation. We hypothesize that high HBs may buffer individuals from transient disrupting stimuli such as a mortality salience cue.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.