Can Culture Be a Salient Predictor of Test-Taking Engagement? An Analysis of Differential Noneffortful Responding on an International College-Level Assessment of Critical Thinking

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2020-07-29 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2020.1789141
Joseph A. Rios, Hongwen Guo
{"title":"Can Culture Be a Salient Predictor of Test-Taking Engagement? An Analysis of Differential Noneffortful Responding on an International College-Level Assessment of Critical Thinking","authors":"Joseph A. Rios, Hongwen Guo","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1789141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to evaluate whether differential noneffortful responding (identified via response latencies) was present in four countries administered a low-stakes college-level critical thinking assessment. Results indicated significant differences (as large as .90 SD) between nearly all country pairings in the average number of noneffortful responses per test taker. Furthermore, noneffortful responding was found to be associated with a number of individual-level predictors, such as demographics (both gender and academic year), prior ability, and perceived difficulty of the test, though, these predictors were found to differ across countries. Ignoring the presence of noneffortful responses was associated with: (a) model fit deterioration as well as inflation of reliability, and (b) the inclusion of non-invariant items in the score linking anchor set. However, no meaningful differences in relative performance were noted once accounting for noneffortful responses. Implications for test development and improving the validity of score-based inferences from international assessments are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"263 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789141","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789141","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: 21

Abstract

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to evaluate whether differential noneffortful responding (identified via response latencies) was present in four countries administered a low-stakes college-level critical thinking assessment. Results indicated significant differences (as large as .90 SD) between nearly all country pairings in the average number of noneffortful responses per test taker. Furthermore, noneffortful responding was found to be associated with a number of individual-level predictors, such as demographics (both gender and academic year), prior ability, and perceived difficulty of the test, though, these predictors were found to differ across countries. Ignoring the presence of noneffortful responses was associated with: (a) model fit deterioration as well as inflation of reliability, and (b) the inclusion of non-invariant items in the score linking anchor set. However, no meaningful differences in relative performance were noted once accounting for noneffortful responses. Implications for test development and improving the validity of score-based inferences from international assessments are discussed.
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
文化是考试参与度的显著预测指标吗?一项国际大学水平批判性思维评估中不费力回答的差异分析
本研究的目的是评估在四个国家进行低风险大学水平批判性思维评估时,是否存在差异的不费力反应(通过反应延迟来识别)。结果表明,在几乎所有国家的配对中,每个测试者不费力的平均回答次数存在显著差异(高达0.90标准差)。此外,不费力的反应被发现与许多个人层面的预测因素有关,比如人口统计(性别和学年)、先前的能力和测试的感知难度,尽管这些预测因素在不同国家有所不同。忽略不费力反应的存在与:(a)模型拟合恶化以及可靠性膨胀有关,(b)在分数链接锚集中包含非不变项目。然而,考虑到不费力的反应,相对表现没有显著差异。讨论了测试开发和提高国际评估中基于分数的推断的有效性的含义。
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
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