Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2013 | 18 | 1 | 5-16

Article title

A note on the correlation of gain scores and achievement level


Selected contents from this journal

Title variants

Languages of publication



The negative correlation between gain score and initial status is one of the classical dilemmas in the measurement of change. A simple but efficient method is proposed to get valid information about the relationship between change and the level of achievement. After finishing and submitting this paper, the author became aware of the fact that the proposed rotation of the 2-dimensional space defined by pre- and post-test has already been presented and discussed by P.D. Oltham 50 years ago. However, there is no reason to withdraw the paper, since the majority of empirical researchers still try to derive correct results on the relationship of level and growth without the simple but efficient method of rotating the data space by 45 degrees. Adressed to these researchers, I would say ‘it’s time to make a change.’








Physical description


  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kile


  • Bereiter, C. (1963). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. W: C.W. Harris (ed.), Problems in measuring change, Madison, Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
  • Campbell, D.T., Kenny, D.A. (1999). A primer on regression artifacts. New York Guilford. Collins, L.M. (1996). Is reliability obsolete? A commentary on ‘Are simple gain scores obsolete?’, Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 289-292.
  • Cronbach, L.J. and Furby, L. (1970): How should we measure change – or should we? Psychological Bulletin 74, 1, 68-80.
  • Fischer, G.H. (2003). The Precision of Gain Scores Under an Item Response Theory Perspective: A Comparison of Asymptotic and Exact Conditional Inference About Change. Applied Psychological Measurement, vol. 27, 1, pp. 3-26.
  • Harris, C.W. (Ed.). Problems in measuring change. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Mellenbergh, G.J. (1999). A note on simple gain score precision. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 87 – 89.
  • Mislevy, R.J., Beaton, A.E., Kaplan, B. and Sheehan, K.M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133-164.
  • Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. W: K.W. Schaie, R.T. Campbell, W. Meredith, S.C. Rawlings (ed.): Methodological issues in aging research, New York: Springer, 171-209.
  • Rogosa, D.R., & Willett, J.B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability of the difference score in the measurement of change. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 335-343.
  • Rost, J., Walter, O., Carstensen, C.H., Senkbeil, W., Prenzel, M. (2004). Naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenz. W: PISA-Konsortium Deitschland (eds.): PISA 2003 – Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland – Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs. Münster: Waxmann, 111-146.
  • Wainer, H., Brown, L.M. (2004). Two statistical paradoxes in the interpretation of group differences: Illustrated with medical school admission and licensing data. The American Statistician. 58, 117-123.

Document Type

Publication order reference


YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.