1 / 15

Reliability of the PBRF data. ************************

Reliability of the PBRF data. ************************. OVERVIEW. Aim: To determine to what extent the 22 tertiary education organisations (TEOs) included in the 2003 PBRF exercise can be reasonably ranked according to their PBRF scores.

vienna
Download Presentation

Reliability of the PBRF data. ************************

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reliability of the PBRF data.************************

  2. OVERVIEW • Aim: To determine to what extent the 22 tertiary education organisations (TEOs) included in the 2003 PBRF exercise can be reasonably ranked according to their PBRF scores. • Justification: Although ranking is not encouraged by statisticians, very often the media provide “league tables” of performance using rankings without taking into account the associated, often large uncertainty of this measure. Like all point estimates, we should have an estimate of the uncertainty surrounding each rank. • Method: We use a straight-forward Monte Carlo procedure that allows us to place uncertainty intervals around the rank given to each of the TEOs.

  3. DATA • 22 TEOs (Tertiary Education Organisations) participated in the 2003 PBRF Assessment. • 22 – 8 Universities; – 2 Polytechnics; – 4 Colleges of Education; – 1 Wananga; – 7 Private Training Establishments. • Each PBRF-eligible staff member was assessed and assigned one of four possible Quality Categories: A, B, C or R • Each Quality Category was assigned a weight: A = 10; B = 6; C = 2; R = 0.

  4. The quality score for each TEO was calculated by adding the weighted scores and then dividing by the number of staff. • The quality scores were calculated on both a FTE-weighted and non-FTE weighted basis. • We will use the non-FTE weighted data in our analysis.

  5. Reported results

  6. METHODS

  7. Simulation method for obtaining confidence intervals for the ranks of the TEOs.

  8. Median and 95% confidence interval for the rank of each TEO

  9. RESULTS:TEOs in the top half of the table • Lincoln University • Massey University • University of Auckland • University of Canterbury • University of Otago • University of Waikato • Victoria University of Wellington

  10. TEOs in the bottom half of the table • AIS St Helens • Bethlehem Institute of Education • Christchurch College of Education • Dunedin College of Education • Te Wananga o Aotearoa • Waikato Institute of Technology • Wellington College of Education

  11. Median and 95% confidence interval for the rank of each TEO

  12. TEOs in the top and bottom quarter

  13. Median and 95% confidence interval for the rank of each TEO

More Related