Relation between examinees’ true knowledge and examination scores: systematic review and exemplary calculations on Pick-N items

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Review Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100483
Dennis Schmidt , Tobias Raupach , Annette Wiegand , Manfred Herrmann , Philipp Kanzow
{"title":"Relation between examinees’ true knowledge and examination scores: systematic review and exemplary calculations on Pick-N items","authors":"Dennis Schmidt ,&nbsp;Tobias Raupach ,&nbsp;Annette Wiegand ,&nbsp;Manfred Herrmann ,&nbsp;Philipp Kanzow","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This manuscript focusing on Pick-N items is the second of two manuscripts regarding scoring approaches of two specific multiple-select item types commonly used to assess knowledge in written examinations. In contrast to other multiple-select item types, the number of true answer options to be marked within each Pick-N item is disclosed to examinees. As various scoring methods for Pick-N items exist, the present study aimed to help educators make informed choices about the use of Pick-N items, the scoring method to be selected, and related aspects (i.e. defining appropriate examination pass marks). Available scoring methods for conventional multiple-select items and Pick-N items were systematically identified from the literature. Their statistical parameters were compared by assessing the metrics <em>available information included</em> and <em>expected chance scores</em> from random guessing. The study further aimed to examine the relation between examinees’ <em>true knowledge</em> and expected scoring results when using Pick-N items.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X22000525","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This manuscript focusing on Pick-N items is the second of two manuscripts regarding scoring approaches of two specific multiple-select item types commonly used to assess knowledge in written examinations. In contrast to other multiple-select item types, the number of true answer options to be marked within each Pick-N item is disclosed to examinees. As various scoring methods for Pick-N items exist, the present study aimed to help educators make informed choices about the use of Pick-N items, the scoring method to be selected, and related aspects (i.e. defining appropriate examination pass marks). Available scoring methods for conventional multiple-select items and Pick-N items were systematically identified from the literature. Their statistical parameters were compared by assessing the metrics available information included and expected chance scores from random guessing. The study further aimed to examine the relation between examinees’ true knowledge and expected scoring results when using Pick-N items.

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
考生真实知识与考试成绩的关系:Pick-N题的系统回顾与示例计算
这篇关于Pick-N题的手稿是两篇关于两种特定的多选题类型的评分方法的手稿中的第二篇,这些多选题类型通常用于评估笔试中的知识。与其他多项选择题类型不同的是,在每个Pick-N题中要标记的正确答案的数量是向考生公开的。由于存在各种各样的Pick-N项目评分方法,本研究旨在帮助教育工作者对Pick-N项目的使用、选择的评分方法以及相关方面(即定义适当的考试及格分数)做出明智的选择。从文献中系统地确定了常规多项选择题和Pick-N题的评分方法。他们的统计参数是通过评估包括的可用信息和随机猜测的预期机会得分来比较的。本研究旨在进一步检验在使用Pick-N题时,考生的真实知识与预期得分结果之间的关系。
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 Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
期刊最新文献
A meta-analysis of the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience: Concerted growth and contextual variance A systematic review on how educators teach AI in K-12 education Translating neuroscience to early childhood education: A scoping review of neuroscience-based professional learning for early childhood educators What is next in mobile-assisted reading? Insights from a decade of eye tracking research into cognitive processes Teaching for paradigm shifts: Supporting the drivers of radical creativity in management education
×
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