Table 6 HLMs comparing performance between PPT and CBT administered assessments for the CI and AS
From: Participation and performance on paper- and computer-based low-stakes assessments
Final estimation of fixed effects with robust standard errors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI models | AS models | |||||
CI 1 | CI 2 | CI 3 | AS 1 | AS 2 | AS 3 | |
Coef. | Coef. | Coef. | Coef. | Coef. | Coef. | |
For intercept 1 | ||||||
For intercept 2 | ||||||
Intercept 3 | 30.99*** | 31.20*** | – | 43.97*** | 44.11*** | – |
Alg. mech. | – | – | 26.93*** | – | – | 42.87*** |
Calc. mech. | – | – | 36.36*** | – | – | 43.77*** |
Calc. E & M | – | – | 29.68*** | – | – | 47.19*** |
For condition (CBT) | ||||||
Intercept 3 | – | − 0.42 | – | – | −0.25 | – |
Alg. mech. | – | – | 0.12 | – | – | −0.61 |
Calc. mech. | – | – | − 0.36 | – | – | 1.63 |
Calc. E & M | – | – | −1.18 | – | – | −2.21 |
For post | ||||||
For intercept 2 | ||||||
Intercept 3 | 13.04*** | 12.84*** | – | 1.76** | 1.33* | – |
Alg. mech. | – | – | 7.45*** | – | – | 1.66 |
Calc. mech. | – | – | 18.61*** | – | – | 2.98* |
Calc. E & M | – | – | 11.59*** | – | – | −1.70 |
For condition (CBT) | ||||||
Intercept 3 | – | 0.42 | – | – | 0.84 | – |
Alg. mech. | – | – | −0.32 | – | – | 0.56 |
Calc. mech. | – | – | −0.80 | – | – | −0.27 |
Calc. E & M | – | – | 3.27 | – | – | 2.40 |
Level 1 and level 2 variance | ||||||
Intercept 1 | 135.46 | 135.22 | 135.61 | 95.12 | 93.56 | 93.53 |
Level 1 | 125.66 | 125.05 | 124.65 | 98.58 | 98.08 | 97.24 |
Level 3 variance | ||||||
Int.1/int.2 | 4.16 | 4.35 | 0.74 | 1.01 | 1.4 | 0.6 |
Int.1/cond. (CBT) | – | 0.89 | 0.89 | – | 4.81 | 3.45 |
Post/int.2 | 5.51 | 5.25 | 2.43 | 0.81 | 0.44 | 0.23 |
Post/cond. (CBT) | – | 1.94 | 1.92 | – | 2.63 | 3.12 |
Total level 3 | 9.67 | 12.43 | 5.98 | 1.82 | 9.28 | 7.4 |
Total variance | 270.79 | 272.7 | 266.24 | 195.52 | 200.92 | 198.17 |