BackgroundDespite global concerns regarding physical inactivity, limited cross-national evidence exists to compare adolescents’ physical activity participation. We analysed data from 52 high- and low-middle income countries, with activity undertaken inside and outside of school in 2015. We investigated gender and socioeconomic disparities, and additionally examined correlations with country-level indices of physical education (PE) curriculum time allocation, wealth, and income inequality.MethodsWe compared adolescents’ reported activity levels inside and outside of school using nationally representative cross-sectional data from 52 high- and low-middle income countries (N = 347,935)—the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2015. Students reported average attendance (days/week) in PE classes, and the days/week engaged in moderate activity (MPA) and vigorous activity (VPA) outside of school. We also compared gender and socioeconomic disparities, and additionally examined correlations with purported determinants—country-level estimates of PE curriculum time allocation, wealth, and income inequality.ResultsAverage activity levels differed substantially both between and within regions, with potentially important differences in distributions identified—such as a bimodal distribution in the U.S. and Canada in PE. Males were more active than females, as were those from households with higher rather than lower household wealth; these disparities were modest for PE, but higher for moderate and vigorous activity outside school—there was strong evidence for heterogeneity in the magnitude of these disparities (e.g., I2 > 95% for gender differences across all countries). PE class attendance was positively correlated with PE curriculum time allocation (rho = 0.36); activity outcomes were inconsistently associated with country-level wealth and income inequality.ConclusionsOur findings reveal extensive cross-country differences in adolescents’ physical activity; in turn, these highlight policy areas that could ultimately improve global adolescent health, such as the incorporation of minimum country-level PE classes, and the targeting of gender and socioeconomic disparities in activity conducted outside of school. Our findings also highlight the utility of educational databases such as PISA for use in global population health research.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. apply. We explain how some of the modelling strategies preferred by economists seem to be at odds with the complex test design, and provide clear advice on the types of robustness tests that are therefore needed when analyzing these datasets. In doing so, we hope to generate a better understanding of international large-scale education databases, and promote better practice in their use. Terms of use: Documents in JEL Classification:I20, C18, C10, C55

In this paper we develop an information distortion model (IDM) of social class differences in self-beliefs and values. The IDM combines psychological biases on frame-of-reference effects with sociological foci on ability stratification. This combination is hypothesized to lead to working class children having more positive math self-beliefs and values than equally able salariat children. We further suggest that the same conditions that give rise to the working class benefit in self-beliefs and values are associated with signaling effects, which suppress educational aspirations and attainment. These hypotheses are tested in one cross-sectional multi-national and one longitudinal study. The results in favor of the IDM challenge cultural models of social class differences and have implications for rational action theory. Educational Impact And Implications StatementWorking class children have higher academic self-concept and task value than equally able, more advantaged, peers in school systems that are stratified by academic ability. However, our cross-national and longitudinal research shows that this advantage does not appear to translate into higher aspirations or attainment. We suggests that the very educational structures that give rise to self-concept and task value advantage for poorer children simultaneously restrict the possibility of their using this advantage to their benefit in terms of educational attainment.

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an important international study of 15‐olds' knowledge and skills. New results are released every 3 years, and have a substantial impact upon education policy. Yet, despite its influence, the methodology underpinning PISA has received significant criticism. Much of this criticism has focused upon the psychometric scaling model used to create the proficiency scores. The aim of this article is to therefore investigate the robustness of cross‐country comparisons of PISA scores to subtle changes to the underlying scaling model used. This includes the specification of the item‐response model, whether the difficulty and discrimination of items are allowed to vary across countries (item‐by‐country interactions) and how test questions not reached by pupils are treated. Our key finding is that these technical choices make little substantive difference to the overall country‐level results.