Thesis advisor: Henry Braun / The Next Generation Science Standards propose a multidimensional model of science learning, comprised of Core Disciplinary Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Accordingly, there is a need for student assessment aligned with the new standards. Creating assessments that validly and reliably measure multidimensional science ability is a challenge for the measurement community (Pellegrino, et al., 2014). Multidimensional assessment tasks may need to go beyond typical item designs of standalone multiple-choice and short-answer items. Furthermore, scoring and modeling of student performance should account for the multidimensionality of the construct. This research contributes to knowledge about best practices for multidimensional science assessment by exploring three areas of interest: 1) item design, 2) scoring rubrics, and 3) measurement models. This study investigated multidimensional scaffolding and response format by comparing alternative item designs on an elementary assessment of matter. Item variations had a different number of item prompts and/or response formats. Observations about student cognition and performance were collected during cognitive interviews and a pilot test. Items were scored using a holistic rubric and a multidimensional rubric, and interrater agreement was examined. Assessment data was scaled with multidimensional scores and holistic scores, using unidimensional and multidimensional Rasch models, and model-data fit was compared. Results showed that scaffolding is associated with more thorough responses, especially among low ability students. Students tended to utilize different cognitive processes to respond to selected-response items and constructed-response items, and were more likely to respond to selected-response arguments. Interrater agreement was highest when the structure of the item aligned with the structure of the scoring rubric. Holistic scores provided similar reliability and precision as multidimensional scores, but item and person fit was poorer. Multidimensional subscales had lower reliability, less precise student estimates than the unidimensional model, and interdimensional correlations were high. However, the multidimensional rubric and model provide nuanced information about student performance and better fit to the response data. Recommendations about optimal combinations of scaffolding, rubric, and measurement models are made for teachers, policymakers, and researchers. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation.

Cette thèse explore deux questions autour de la précarité énergétique en France. Quel(s) indicateur(s) adopter pour quantifier la précarité énergétique et capturer ses multiples dimensions? Dans quelle mesure la fiscalité écologique pourrait-elle amplifier le phénomène ou, au contraire, constituer une opportunité de le combattre?Un premier chapitre introduit les enjeux sociaux et économiques de la précarité énergétique en France, ainsi que les défis que ce phénomène soulève pour les acteurs publics dans le cadre de la transition écologique (chapitre 1). Puis la thèse s'organise en deux grandes parties. La première partie concerne la quantification de la précarité énergétique. Je commence par rappeler les débats actuels autour de la mesure de la précarité énergétique et par souligner les limites des approches existantes (chapitre 2). Puis, j’explore la dimension transport du phénomène et propose un indice composite qui cible les différents facteurs qui contraignent la mobilité des ménages et leurs possibilités d’adaptation. Cet indice identifie trois niveaux d’exposition à une hausse des prix des carburants : précarité, vulnérabilité et dépendance (chapitre 3). Je poursuis ensuite la réflexion sur la construction d’un indice multidimensionnel de précarité énergétique et je cherche à mettre à jour ses implications politiques. Deux indices sont élaborés : un pour le logement et un pour le transport. Je montre comment ces nouveaux indices, parce qu’ils s’intéressent au cumul des facteurs qui désavantagent les ménages en matière d’énergie, permettent de limiter les erreurs d’inclusion et d’exclusion reprochées aux approches classiques. Une application dans le contexte français apporte de nouvelles perspectives sur le ciblage des réponses politiques et souligne la nécessité de remédier aux dimensions non monétaires de la précarité énergétique (chapitre 4).La seconde partie concerne les impacts distributifs de la fiscalité carbone. A partir d'une revue de la littérature, je précise les enjeux méthodologiques et les choix de modélisation pour rendre compte de manière satisfaisante de la distribution des impacts (chapitre 5). Je développe ensuite un modèle de microsimulation spécialement conçu pour évaluer l’impact sur les ménages de la taxe carbone française. Ce modèle simule, pour un échantillon représentatif de la population française, les taxes prélevées sur leur consommation d’énergie dans le logement et le transport. Je l’utilise pour quantifier l’impact de la taxe carbone sur les inégalités et la précarité énergétique. Enfin, j’explore ensuite différents scénarios de redistribution aux ménages avec pour objectif de corriger les iniquités engendrées - en particulier compenser la régressivité de la taxe carbone et combattre la précarité énergétique. J’évalue le coût de ces mesures au regard des recettes de la taxe carbone (chapitre 6). / This thesis explores two questions about fuel poverty in France: What indicator(s) should be adopted to quantify fuel poverty and capture its multiple dimensions? To what extent does ecological taxation amplify the phenomenon or, on the contrary, provides an opportunity to fight it?A first chapter introduces the social and economic issues of fuel poverty in France, as well as the challenges this phenomenon raises for public actors in the context of an ecological transition (chapter 1). Then the thesis is divided into two main parts.The first part deals with the measurement of fuel poverty. I start by highlighting the current debates on the measurement of fuel poverty and the limitations of existing approaches (chapter 2). Next, I explore the transport dimension of fuel poverty and I propose a composite index of the various factors that constrain household mobility and their possibilities to adapt to higher fuel prices. This index identifies three levels of exposure to rising fuel prices: precariousness, vulnerability and dependence (chapter 3). I then continue studying the design of a multidimensional index of energy poverty and I seek to uncover its political implications. Two indices are developed: one for housing and one for transport. I show how these new indices, through addressing the cumulative factors that disadvantage households in terms of energy, can help limit the inclusion and exclusion errorsfrom which conventional approaches suffer. Quantification in the French context brings new insights on the targeting of policy responses and emphasizes the need to address the non-monetary dimensions of fuel poverty (chapter 4). The second part studies the distributive impacts of carbon taxation. Based on a review of literature, I discuss the methodological issues and the modelling choices to represent the distribution of impacts (chapter 5). I then develop a microsimulation model to assess the impact of the French carbon tax on households. This model simulates, for a representative sample of the French population, the taxes levied on their energy consumption in housing and transport. I use this model to quantify the impact of the carbon tax on inequality and fuel poverty. Finally, I explore different scenarios of redistribution of carbon tax revenues to households, with the objective to correct the found inequities - in particular, to compensate for the regressivity of the carbon tax and to reduce fuel poverty. I evaluate the cost of these measures in respect to the amount of carbon tax revenues (chapter 6).

Non-monetary deprivation indicators are now widely used for studying and measuring poverty in Europe. However, despite their prevalence, the empirical performance of existing deprivation scales has rarely been examined. This thesis i) identifies possible conceptual problems of existing deprivation scales such as indexing, missing dimensions and threshold; ii) empirically assesses the extent of possible error in measurement related to these conceptual problems; and iii) offer an alternative way for constructing deprivation measures to mitigate the identified conceptual problems. The thesis consists of four stand-alone papers, accompanied by an overarching introduction and conclusion. The first three papers provide empirical evidence on the empirical consequences of the missing dimensions and threshold problems for the measurement and analysis of poverty, while the fourth paper exemplifies a concept-led multidimensional design that can reduce the error introduced by these conceptual problems. The analysis is generally held for 25 EU countries using European Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC); only in the second paper, the analysis is done for the UK using British Household Panel Survey (BHPS).