Comparing mapping methods





Rosetta Stone

AMPL module

Policy linking

Pairwise comparison

Data collection Ex-ante Ex-ante Ex-post Ex-post
Students Same Different Different Different
What A concordance table which translates the scores resulting from national or regional assessments to scores on international assessments. An AMPL module calibrated to the MPL is inserted either as an additional booklet or by running parallel assessments. Matches up definitions of the MPL descriptor using subjective judgment and under certain conditions, allows those assessments to be aligned across countries.
Items/test Different assessments Same AMPL module across different assessment programmes Different assessments
Calibration Calibration needs various steps Accurate to report on the MPL Depends on assessment programme
Alignment with Global MPL Yes, but needs standard setting to define accurate alignment. Yes Depends on alignment and sufficiency of items
Sufficient # of items Yes Yes Depends on each assessment tool
Measurement skills continuums Yes Not now but possible with current developments Depends on each assessment tool
Track progress over time Yes Yes Not clear; depends on quality of tools
Frequency Cycle depending on each assessment On demand Once per assessment n/a
Output Concordance table Calibrated to the MPL Identifies the MPL cut-off points Identifies the MPL cut-off points
How Relies on the participation of countries in two assessments.

Students take the two assessments to help link between the results of both assessments.

Insert the booklet either as a standalone running parallel test or as a rotating booklet. Group of experts provide judgment about each item on the test and set initial cut scores based on their understanding of the proficiency levels and the student population.
Country ownership Very low High High Medium
Needs Tests have enough items that could identify linking. A tool built with items that are aligned and sufficient to measure the MPL. Good-quality cognitive tool and procedures.

Strong alignment of assessment tools to GPF.

Pros Technically rigorous Technically rigorous Cost-effectiveness
Cons Costly. Efficient if done between a regional and a global assessment. Does not allow deep investigation of the construct. Relatively subjective (less for pairwise). Depends on the quality of the assessment tool and implementation of the linking process.
Achieved so far Rosetta Stone: ERCE (LAC) and PASEC (SSA) participated with IDEA in the Rosetta Stone exercise. AMPL-b administered

AMPL-c under development (PISA)

AMPL-a under development

First phase of pilots around 16 countries completed. Standard setting exercise for MILO (ACER, 2022).
Next/remaining steps Potential expansion to other regions and national assessments. Scale-up depends on country’s interest and development partners’ support. Revision of toolkit. Methodology guidance and analysis.
National cost Between US$250,000 and $400,000. Printing cost of a booklet. Extra administration costs depends on modality.  Between US$30,000 to $50,000 for national workshop. None
International cost International US$1 million per region. Regional – US$500,000 Averages US$100,000 for technical assistance  Between US$50,000 and $75,000 per country US$40,000


Section  Resource Link
1 SDGs
Minimum Proficiency Levels used to report for indicator 4.1.1
Global Content Framework
GPF for Reading
GPF for Mathematics
3 SDG4 Global Tables 2021
4 Zambia Conference Documents
Rosetta Stone Study
MILO: Monitoring Impacts on Learning Outcomes
Policy linking