Here, we were interested in (Q6) whether accounting for PD affects the estimates of item parameters, (Q7) whether the multigroup mixture PD models differ in the conclusions that can be drawn from them about the prevalence of PD, and (Q8) the impact that PD has on the results of group comparisons of proficiency.
The DBS EQA method potentially provides a better solution to assure the quality of POCT testing, in comparison to proficiency panels in Africa.
In addition, we examined whether accounting for group differences in PD affected the results of the group comparisons of students' proficiencies, and whether the mixture models envisaged differed in their estimates of group differences in proficiencies.
Fig. 4 International comparison of the distribution of proficiency levels on the PISA 2009 scale.
We will investigate two issues: first, the relationship between LexTALE and translation performance and, second, the relationship between LexTALE and scores on the QPT, in comparison with self-ratings of proficiency.
As such, group differences in PD are likely, and group comparisons of students' proficiencies could be affected by group differences in PD (Mittelhaëuser et al. 2015; Nagy et al. 2016).
The comparison of different levels of language proficiency showed that language learners increase their use of conventional expressions at higher levels of language proficiency requiring both linguistic and sociopragmatic competence.
An important aspect of proficiency tests is that it enables a comparison of the data from one lab with the results in other labs.
In comparing adjacent proficiency groups, however, the effects of proficiency were less prominent across item types.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of our sample with students from two exemplary Anglophone countries, the UK and the US, in terms of the distribution of proficiency levels.
