When Should Individual Ability Estimates Be Reported if Rapid Guessing Is Present?

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2022-07-26 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2022.2103138
Joseph A. Rios
{"title":"When Should Individual Ability Estimates Be Reported if Rapid Guessing Is Present?","authors":"Joseph A. Rios","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2022.2103138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p><p>Testing programs are confronted with the decision of whether to report individual scores for examinees that have engaged in rapid guessing (RG). As noted by the <i>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</i>, this decision should be based on a documented criterion that determines score exclusion. To this end, a number of heuristic criteria (e.g., exclude all examinees with RG rates of 10%) have been adopted in the literature. Given that these criteria lack strong methodological support, the objective of this simulation study was to evaluate their appropriateness in terms of individual ability estimate and classification accuracy when manipulating both assessment and RG characteristics. The findings provide evidence that employing a common criterion for all examinees may be an ineffective strategy because a given RG percentage may have differing degrees of biasing effects based on test difficulty, examinee ability, and RG pattern. These results suggest that practitioners may benefit from establishing context-specific exclusion criteria that consider test purpose, score use, and targeted examinee trait levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2022.2103138","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Testing programs are confronted with the decision of whether to report individual scores for examinees that have engaged in rapid guessing (RG). As noted by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, this decision should be based on a documented criterion that determines score exclusion. To this end, a number of heuristic criteria (e.g., exclude all examinees with RG rates of 10%) have been adopted in the literature. Given that these criteria lack strong methodological support, the objective of this simulation study was to evaluate their appropriateness in terms of individual ability estimate and classification accuracy when manipulating both assessment and RG characteristics. The findings provide evidence that employing a common criterion for all examinees may be an ineffective strategy because a given RG percentage may have differing degrees of biasing effects based on test difficulty, examinee ability, and RG pattern. These results suggest that practitioners may benefit from establishing context-specific exclusion criteria that consider test purpose, score use, and targeted examinee trait levels.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如果存在快速猜测,应该在什么时候报告个人能力评估?
摘要考试程序面临着是否报告参与快速猜测(RG)的考生的个人分数的决定。正如教育和心理测试标准所指出的那样,这个决定应该基于确定分数排除的文件标准。为此,文献中采用了一些启发式标准(例如,排除RG率为10%的所有考生)。鉴于这些标准缺乏强有力的方法学支持,本模拟研究的目的是在操纵评估和RG特征时,评估其在个人能力估计和分类准确性方面的适当性。研究结果证明,对所有考生采用一个共同的标准可能是一个无效的策略,因为给定的RG百分比可能会根据考试难度、考生能力和RG模式产生不同程度的偏倚效应。这些结果表明,从业者可以从建立考虑考试目的、分数使用和目标考生特质水平的情境特定排除标准中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
期刊最新文献
New Tests of Rater Drift in Trend Scoring Automated Scoring of Short-Answer Questions: A Progress Report Item and Test Characteristic Curves of Rank-2PL Models for Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires Impact of violating unidimensionality on Rasch calibration for mixed-format tests Can Adaptive Testing Improve Test-Taking Experience? A Case Study on Educational Survey Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1