Who’s better? Adaptive comparative judgment of dance performances

Eric Jeisy
{"title":"Who’s better? Adaptive comparative judgment of dance performances","authors":"Eric Jeisy","doi":"10.36950/2024.2ciss051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction \nAdaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) is a promising digital assessment method that allows measurement of performance or competencies by repeated comparisons of two items. Whereas ACJ is becoming a popular assessment method in educational measurement there are no such studies or published use cases in the context of sport or physical education-related teacher education (Bartholomew & Jones, 2022). To address this research gap, an explorative and comparative study was conducted to investigate whether ACJ offers an advantage over the traditional form of criteria-oriented scoring (TA) in the evaluation of students' dance performances. \nMethods \nIn four face-to-face examinations the dance performances of 61 student teachers (82% female) were assessed by two lecturers in each case (n = 5; Age M = 50, 3 women, 2 men). Each lecturer scored independently on an 18-point scale on five different evaluation categories (e.g., technical quality). In addition, the dance performances were videotaped, and the same five lecturers assessed the dance performances again using the ACJ tool Comproved. To analyze interrater agreement and reliability, intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated for the traditional assessment (Sato, 2022). The reliability of the ACJ was analyzed by calculating scale separation reliability (SSR; Verhavert et al., 2019). A Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was conducted to analyze whether there is a correlation between the ranked results of the two assessment methods. To assess the validity of the assessment methods, a focus group interview was conducted with the lecturers involved in the study. \nResults and Discussion \nBoth assessment methods are characterized by very high and high reliability values (TA: ICC = 0.974, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.955-0.985 p < .001; ACJ: SSR: 0.83, Ability [-5.97, 4.99], Misfit [-1.68, 1.34]). In particular, the ICC of the TA is higher than comparable results in dance research (Sato, 2022). There are doubts as to whether the lecturers really scored independently of each other at the face-to-face examinations. The ranked results of both methods correlate with a very strong effect (Spearman’s-Rho: rs -.818, p < 0.001). However, detailed analyses show some differences. The answer to the question of who delivered the best dance performance differs depending on the assessment method. In addition, in the traditional assessment, many scores fall on a value at which the dance examination is just passed (10 points). The results of the focus group interview are still being analyzed and will be presented at the conference. \nReferences \nBartholomew, S. R., & Jones, M. D. (2022). A systematized review of research with adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1159-1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09642-6 \nSato, N. (2022). Improving reliability and validity in hip-hop dance assessment: Judging standards that elevate the sport and competition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 934158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934158 \nVerhavert, S., Bouwer, R., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2019). A meta-analysis on the reliability of comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(5), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1602027","PeriodicalId":415194,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36950/2024.2ciss051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) is a promising digital assessment method that allows measurement of performance or competencies by repeated comparisons of two items. Whereas ACJ is becoming a popular assessment method in educational measurement there are no such studies or published use cases in the context of sport or physical education-related teacher education (Bartholomew & Jones, 2022). To address this research gap, an explorative and comparative study was conducted to investigate whether ACJ offers an advantage over the traditional form of criteria-oriented scoring (TA) in the evaluation of students' dance performances. Methods In four face-to-face examinations the dance performances of 61 student teachers (82% female) were assessed by two lecturers in each case (n = 5; Age M = 50, 3 women, 2 men). Each lecturer scored independently on an 18-point scale on five different evaluation categories (e.g., technical quality). In addition, the dance performances were videotaped, and the same five lecturers assessed the dance performances again using the ACJ tool Comproved. To analyze interrater agreement and reliability, intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated for the traditional assessment (Sato, 2022). The reliability of the ACJ was analyzed by calculating scale separation reliability (SSR; Verhavert et al., 2019). A Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was conducted to analyze whether there is a correlation between the ranked results of the two assessment methods. To assess the validity of the assessment methods, a focus group interview was conducted with the lecturers involved in the study. Results and Discussion Both assessment methods are characterized by very high and high reliability values (TA: ICC = 0.974, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.955-0.985 p < .001; ACJ: SSR: 0.83, Ability [-5.97, 4.99], Misfit [-1.68, 1.34]). In particular, the ICC of the TA is higher than comparable results in dance research (Sato, 2022). There are doubts as to whether the lecturers really scored independently of each other at the face-to-face examinations. The ranked results of both methods correlate with a very strong effect (Spearman’s-Rho: rs -.818, p < 0.001). However, detailed analyses show some differences. The answer to the question of who delivered the best dance performance differs depending on the assessment method. In addition, in the traditional assessment, many scores fall on a value at which the dance examination is just passed (10 points). The results of the focus group interview are still being analyzed and will be presented at the conference. References Bartholomew, S. R., & Jones, M. D. (2022). A systematized review of research with adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1159-1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09642-6 Sato, N. (2022). Improving reliability and validity in hip-hop dance assessment: Judging standards that elevate the sport and competition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 934158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934158 Verhavert, S., Bouwer, R., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2019). A meta-analysis on the reliability of comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(5), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1602027
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
谁更胜一筹?舞蹈表演的适应性比较判断
引言 适应性比较判断(ACJ)是一种很有前途的数字评估方法,它可以通过对两个项目的反复比较来测量成绩或能力。虽然自适应比较判断正成为教育测量中一种流行的评估方法,但在体育或与体育相关的师范教育中,还没有此类研究或公开发表的使用案例(Bartholomew 和 Jones,2022 年)。为了填补这一研究空白,我们开展了一项探索性比较研究,以探讨在评价学生的舞蹈表演时,ACJ 是否比传统的标准导向评分法(TA)更具优势。方法 在四次面对面的考试中,61 名师范生(82% 为女性)的舞蹈表演分别由两名讲师(n = 5;年龄 M = 50,3 名女性,2 名男性)进行评估。每位讲师按照 18 分制对五个不同的评价类别(如技术质量)进行独立评分。此外,还对舞蹈表演进行了录像,同样的五位讲师使用 ACJ 工具 Comproved 再次对舞蹈表演进行了评估。为了分析评分者之间的一致性和可靠性,对传统评估计算了类内相关(ICC)(Sato,2022 年)。通过计算量表分离信度(SSR;Verhavert 等人,2019 年)分析了 ACJ 的信度。进行了斯皮尔曼等级相关分析,以分析两种评估方法的等级结果之间是否存在相关性。为评估评估方法的有效性,对参与研究的讲师进行了焦点小组访谈。结果与讨论 两种评估方法的信度值都非常高(TA:ICC = 0.974,95% 置信区间(CI):0.955-0.985 p < .001;ACJ:SSR:0.83,Ability [-5.97,4.99],Misfit [-1.68,1.34])。其中,TA 的 ICC 值高于舞蹈研究中的类似结果(Sato,2022 年)。有人怀疑讲师在面授考试中是否真的独立评分。两种方法的排名结果具有很强的相关效应(Spearman's-Rho:rs -.818,p < 0.001)。然而,详细分析显示出一些差异。对于 "谁的舞蹈表现最好 "这一问题,不同的评估方法得出的答案也不尽相同。此外,在传统的评估中,许多分数都落在舞蹈考试刚刚及格的数值上(10 分)。焦点小组访谈的结果仍在分析之中,并将在会议上公布。参考文献 Bartholomew, S. R., & Jones, M. D. (2022)。高等教育中适应性比较判断(ACJ)研究的系统回顾。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09642-6 Sato, N. (2022).提高街舞评估的可靠性和有效性:提升运动和比赛的评判标准。https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934158 Verhavert, S., Bouwer, R., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2019).关于比较判断可靠性的荟萃分析。教育评估:Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(5), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1602027
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
From supercrip to techno supercrip Associations between daily movement behaviors, sleep, and affect in older adults: An ecological momentary assessment study Position statement regarding the current standing of exercise therapy in Austria (Positionspapier zur Situation der Trainingstherapie in Österreich) The Perceived Instrumental Effects of Maltreatment in Sport (PIEMS) scale: Translation, (cross-)validation, and short-form development of the German version Who’s better? Adaptive comparative judgment of dance performances
×
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