Model meets reality: Validating a new behavioral measure for test-taking effort

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2021-01-12 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2020.1858786
Esther Ulitzsch, Christiane Penk, Matthias von Davier, S. Pohl
{"title":"Model meets reality: Validating a new behavioral measure for test-taking effort","authors":"Esther Ulitzsch, Christiane Penk, Matthias von Davier, S. Pohl","doi":"10.1080/10627197.2020.1858786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Identifying and considering test-taking effort is of utmost importance for drawing valid inferences on examinee competency in low-stakes tests. Different approaches exist for doing so. The speed-accuracy+engagement model aims at identifying non-effortful test-taking behavior in terms of nonresponse and rapid guessing based on responses and response times. The model allows for identifying rapid-guessing behavior on the item-by-examinee level whilst jointly modeling the processes underlying rapid guessing and effortful responding. To assess whether the model indeed provides a valid measure of test-taking effort, we investigate (1) convergent validity with previously developed behavioral as well as self-report measures on guessing behavior and effort, (2) fit within the nomological network of test-taking motivation derived from expectancy-value theory, and (3) ability to detect differences between groups that can be assumed to differ in test-taking effort. Results suggest that the model captures central aspects of non-effortful test-taking behavior. While it does not cover the whole spectrum of non-effortful test-taking behavior, it provides a measure for some aspects of it, in a manner that is less subjective than self-reports. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for the development of behavioral measures of non-effortful test-taking behavior.","PeriodicalId":46209,"journal":{"name":"Educational Assessment","volume":"26 1","pages":"104 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10627197.2020.1858786","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1858786","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

ABSTRACT Identifying and considering test-taking effort is of utmost importance for drawing valid inferences on examinee competency in low-stakes tests. Different approaches exist for doing so. The speed-accuracy+engagement model aims at identifying non-effortful test-taking behavior in terms of nonresponse and rapid guessing based on responses and response times. The model allows for identifying rapid-guessing behavior on the item-by-examinee level whilst jointly modeling the processes underlying rapid guessing and effortful responding. To assess whether the model indeed provides a valid measure of test-taking effort, we investigate (1) convergent validity with previously developed behavioral as well as self-report measures on guessing behavior and effort, (2) fit within the nomological network of test-taking motivation derived from expectancy-value theory, and (3) ability to detect differences between groups that can be assumed to differ in test-taking effort. Results suggest that the model captures central aspects of non-effortful test-taking behavior. While it does not cover the whole spectrum of non-effortful test-taking behavior, it provides a measure for some aspects of it, in a manner that is less subjective than self-reports. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for the development of behavioral measures of non-effortful test-taking behavior.
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
模型符合现实:验证测试工作的新行为度量
识别和考虑应试努力对于在低风险测试中对考生能力做出有效推断至关重要。有不同的方法可以做到这一点。速度-准确度+参与模型旨在根据反应和反应时间识别不费力的应试行为,即不反应和快速猜测。该模型允许在每个考生的水平上识别快速猜测行为,同时联合建模快速猜测和努力反应的过程。为了评估该模型是否确实提供了一个有效的测试努力,我们研究了(1)与先前开发的猜测行为和努力的行为和自我报告测量的收敛效度,(2)与来自期望值理论的考试动机的法则网络的拟合,以及(3)检测可以假设不同的小组之间的测试努力差异的能力。结果表明,该模型捕捉了不费力的考试行为的核心方面。虽然它没有涵盖所有不费力的应试行为,但它提供了一个衡量它的某些方面的方法,以一种比自我报告更少主观的方式。文章最后讨论了开发不费力考试行为的行为测量方法的意义。
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
Educational Assessment
Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.
期刊最新文献
Dialect and Mathematics Performance in African American Children Who Use AAE: Insights from Explanatory IRT and Error Analysis Raising the Bar: How Revising an English Language Proficiency Assessment for Initial English Learner Classification Affects Students’ Later Academic Achievements Monitoring Rater Quality in Observational Systems: Issues Due to Unreliable Estimates of Rater Quality Improving the Precision of Classroom Observation Scores Using a Multi-Rater and Multi-Timepoint Item Response Theory Model High Stakes Assessments in Primary Schools and Teachers’ Anxiety About Work
×
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