C. A. PENSAVALLE, G. SOLINAS

Open Access 771

Figure 3.

Wright map of the second instrument.

of the first questionnaire, Item 7 (1.142 logits), was higher in

difficulty as compared to Item 18 that was almost twice as easy

(−2.266 logits). For the second questionnaire, it is difficult to

define the students’ strategic competence because of large gaps

of the scale in which items are absent. These results provide

evidence for construct validity of the second questionnaire. In

particular, the item difficulty measures show that this question-

naire is composed of items whose level of difficulty did not

correspond to the level of Mathematics proficiency of the stu-

dents’ sample. Therefore, in light of these preliminary results,

there is a need for local schools and universities to become

attuned to the full extent of the Mathematics problem as it af-

fects Senior High School Sardinian Students. The diagnostic

testing of new undergraduates is recommended as an effective

means of investigating levels of Mathematics proficiency and

identifying actions to improve quality, equity and efficiency of

Sardinian educational systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Sardinia Region, the

European Social Fund and the Italian Ministry of Labor and

Social Policies whose funding made this study possible.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2002). Scaling PISA cognitive data. In R. Adams, & M.

Wu (Eds.), PISA 2000 technical report (pp. 99-108). Paris: OECD.

Adams, R., Wu, M., & Wilson, M. (2012). ACER ConQuest 3.1. Mel-

bourne: ACER.

Bock, R. D., & Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for

dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35, 179-187.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291262

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the rasch model: Funda-

mental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boone, W. J., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis

when conducting science education research utilizing multiple-

choice tests. Science Education, 90, 253-269.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20106

Brentari, E., & Golia, S. (2007). Unidimensionality in the Rasch model:

how to detect and interpret. Statis ti c a , 6 7 , 253-261.

Chiandotto, B., & Giusti, C. (2005). L’abbandono degli studi universi-

tari. In C. Crocetta (Ed.), Modelli statistici per l’analisi della tran-

sizione università-lavoro (pp. 1-22). Padova.

Cingano, F., & Cipollone, P. (2007). University drop-out: The case of

Italy. Temi di discussione del Servizio Studi, 626. Roma: Banca

d’Italia.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of

tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Delvecchio, F., & D’Ovidio, F. (2002). Alcuni fattori di rischio per

l’abbandono degli studi universitari. In L. C. Sardi, & F. Delvecchio

(Eds.), Indicatori e metodi per l’analisi dei percorsi universitari e

postuniversitari (pp. 101-124). Padova: Cleup.

Dunne, T., Long, C., Craig, T., & Venter, E. (2012). Meeting the re-

quirements of both classroom-based and systematic assessment of

mathematics proficiency: The potential of Rasch measurement theory.

Pythagoras, 33, 16 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v33i3.19

Fisher, G. (1995). Derivations of the Rasch model. In G. H. Fisher, & I.

W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations recent develop-

ments and applications (pp. 15-38). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4230-7_2

Hawkes, T., & Savage, M. (2000). Measuring the mathematics problem.

London: Engineering Council.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping

how children learn Mathematics. Washington DC: National Acade-

mic Press.

MIUR/CNVSU (2011). Undicesimo rapporto sullo stato del sistema

universtiario. http://www.cnvsu.it

Mossi, P., Venuleo, C., Tondo, P., & Salvatore, S. (2012). The meas-

urement of students’ performance. The use of an extended Rasch

model for the analysis of predictors of high educational performance.

EJASA, 5, 393-399.

Mouw, J. T., & Khanna, R. K. (1983). Prediction of academic success:

A review of the literature and some recommendations. College Stu-

dent Journal, 27, 328-336.

PISA (2009). Results: What students know and can do. Student per-

formance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and at-

tainments tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Re-

search.

Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achieve-

ment with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004

Samuelsson, J. (2010). The impact of teaching approaches on students’

mathematical proficiency in Sweden. International Electronic Jour-

nal of Mathematics Education , 5, 61-78.

Solinas, G., Masia, M.D., Maida, G., & Muresu, E. (2012). What really

affects student satisfaction? An assessment of quality through a uni-

versity-wide student survey. Creative Education, 3, 37-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31006

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). International handbook of school

effectiveness. London: Falmer.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch

measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press.