Most chosen general qualifications exam board in England.

  • About AQA

  • Centre Services

  • Join Us

  • Contact Us

AQA
  • Subjects
  • Qualifications
  • Professional Development
  • Exams Admin
  • Services
  • Search
  • Subjects

  • Qualifications

  • Professional Development

  • Exams Admin

  • Services

  • About AQA

  • Centre Services

  • Join Us

  • Contact Us

  • Log in

Subjects

  • Accounting

  • Art and Design

  • Biology

  • Business

  • Chemistry

  • Computer Science

  • Dance

  • Design and Technology

  • Drama

  • Economics

  • English

  • Food preparation and Nutrition

  • French

  • Geography

  • German

  • History

  • Law

  • Mathematics

  • Media Studies

  • Music

  • Physical Education

  • Physics

  • Politics

  • Psychology

  • Religious Studies

  • Science

  • Sociology

  • Spanish

  • All subjects

GCSEs

  • Biology (8461)

  • Chemistry (8462)

  • Combined Science: Trilogy (8464)

  • English Language (8700)

  • English Literature (8702)

  • Geography (8035)

  • History (8145)

  • Mathematics (8300)

  • See all GCSEs

AS and A-levels

  • Biology (7401)

  • Business (7131)

  • Chemistry (7404)

  • Geography (7037)

  • History (7041)

  • Physics (7407)

  • Psychology (7181)

  • Sociology (7191)

  • See all AS and A-Levels

Other qualifications

  • Applied Generals

  • AQA Certificate Mathematics

  • Entry Level Certificates

  • Project Qualifications

  • Unit Award Scheme

  • All qualifications

Our training

  • Course finder

  • About our training

  • Online training

  • Face-to-face training

  • In-school training

  • Inside assessment

Courses by theme

  • Effective exam prep

  • Exams officers

  • Getting started

  • Unit Award Scheme

Courses by subject

  • English

  • Mathematics

  • Science

  • Languages

  • Design and Technology

  • Physical Education

  • Geography

  • History

  • All professional development

Dates

  • Dates and timetables

  • Key dates

Non-exam assessment (NEA)

  • NEA, coursework and controlled assessment

  • Deadlines for non-exam assessment

  • Record forms

  • Submit marks

Exams

  • Entries

  • Entry fees

  • Exams guidance

  • Question papers and stationery

  • Access arrangements

  • Special consideration

Results

  • Results days

  • Results slips

  • Grade boundaries

  • Results statistics

  • Post-results services

  • Exam certificates

  • All Exams Admin

Assessment Services

  • Centre Services

  • Associate Extranet

  • Become an associate

Products

  • All About Maths

  • Alpha Plus

  • Data Insights

  • Exampro

  • Project Q

  • Stride Maths

  • Testbase

  • Unit Award Scheme

News and Insights

  • AQI research and insight

  • News

  • Inside exams podcast

AQA
  • Become an examiner
  • Switch to AQA
  • Contact Us
  • Join us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Accessibility
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • Cookie notice
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube

©AQA 2025 | Company number: 03644723 | Registered office: Devas Street, Manchester, M15 6EX | AQA is not responsible for the content of external sites

AQA Education has obtained an injunction preventing interference with public examinations. This notice is to alert you to the injunction, so that you are aware of it and can make submissions about it if you wish to do so.

  1. Home
  2. About Us
  3. Our Research
  4. Research Library
  5. Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate?

Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate?

Share this page

  • WhatsApp
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate?

Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate?

04 Feb 1997

Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate?

By Ben Jones

Abstract

There has recently been a renewed interest in three types of comparability of standards in the United Kingdom public examination system: between years, between subjects and between the six examination boards.

Whilst comparisons of raw grade distributions are now generally acknowledged to be invalid indicators of relative standards, comparisons are regularly made for this purpose between adjusted grade distributions. Such adjustments are typically the result of statistically controlling for some of the relevant variables.

The dangers of such an approach are that only easily quantifiable variables are used in the adjustment and that any residual differences between distributions will automatically be attributed to difference in standard.

Using candidate‐level data from four 1994 Advanced level (A-level) mathematics examinations (designed for 18‐year‐old students), and paying particular attention to the Schools’ Mathematics Project (SMP) 16‐19 syllabus, the paper reports on two such analyses.

It then discusses some reasons why attributing differences in the adjusted grade distribution to differences in standard could be invalid. Whilst the study focuses on four A-level mathematics syllabuses, the same principles apply irrespective of the context in which statistical comparisons of examination results are made.

The methodologies, their shortcomings and the pleas for caution are not, therefore, specific to this study, this type of comparison or this examination system.

How to cite

Jones, B (1997). Comparing examination standards: is a purely statistical approach adequate? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4, 2.

Keywords

  • Comparability
  • Statistics