{"title":"Improving Test-Taking Effort in Low-Stakes Group-Based Educational Testing: A Meta-Analysis of Interventions","authors":"Joseph A. Rios","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2021.1890741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Four decades of research have shown that students’ low test-taking effort is a serious threat to the validity of score-based inferences from low-stakes, group-based educational assessments. This meta-analysis sought to identify effective interventions for improving students’ test-taking effort in such contexts. Included studies (a) used a treatment-control group design; (b) administered a low-stakes group-based educational assessment; (c) employed an intervention to improve test-taking motivation; and (d) evaluated test-taking effort and/or test performance as outcomes. The analysis included 53 studies (N = 59,096) that produced 60 and 105 effect sizes of test-taking effort and test performance, respectively. On average, interventions were found to improve test-taking effort and test performance by 0.13 standard deviations (SD) each. The largest gains in test-taking effort were observed when providing external incentives followed by increasing test relevance, while no significant differences were found between these two intervention types in improving test performance. Furthermore, negligible impact was detected on both dependent variables for interventions that modified assessment design or promised feedback. Recommendations for future research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"85 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2021.1890741","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2021.1890741","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: 18
Abstract
ABSTRACT Four decades of research have shown that students’ low test-taking effort is a serious threat to the validity of score-based inferences from low-stakes, group-based educational assessments. This meta-analysis sought to identify effective interventions for improving students’ test-taking effort in such contexts. Included studies (a) used a treatment-control group design; (b) administered a low-stakes group-based educational assessment; (c) employed an intervention to improve test-taking motivation; and (d) evaluated test-taking effort and/or test performance as outcomes. The analysis included 53 studies (N = 59,096) that produced 60 and 105 effect sizes of test-taking effort and test performance, respectively. On average, interventions were found to improve test-taking effort and test performance by 0.13 standard deviations (SD) each. The largest gains in test-taking effort were observed when providing external incentives followed by increasing test relevance, while no significant differences were found between these two intervention types in improving test performance. Furthermore, negligible impact was detected on both dependent variables for interventions that modified assessment design or promised feedback. Recommendations for future research and practice are discussed.
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.