Improving Test-Taking Effort in Low-Stakes Group-Based Educational Testing: A Meta-Analysis of Interventions

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2021.1890741
Joseph A. Rios
{"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.
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
提高低风险群体教育测试的应试努力:干预措施的荟萃分析
四十年的研究表明,学生的低应试努力严重威胁着低风险、基于群体的教育评估中基于分数的推断的有效性。本荟萃分析旨在确定有效的干预措施,以提高学生在这种情况下的应试努力。纳入的研究(a)采用治疗-对照组设计;(b)进行以小组为基础的低风险教育评估;(c)采用干预措施提高应试动机;(d)评估应试努力和/或考试成绩作为结果。分析包括53项研究(N = 59,096),分别产生了60和105个测试努力和测试表现的效应大小。平均而言,研究发现干预措施对考试努力和考试成绩的改善分别为0.13个标准差(SD)。当提供外部激励,然后增加考试相关性时,观察到考试努力的最大收益,而这两种干预类型在提高考试成绩方面没有发现显着差异。此外,对修改评估设计或承诺反馈的干预措施的两个因变量的影响可以忽略不计。最后对今后的研究和实践提出了建议。
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