定时测试会影响效率分数的解释吗?

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Educational Measurement Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI:10.1111/jedm.12393
Frank Goldhammer, Ulf Kroehne, Carolin Hahnel, Johannes Naumann, Paul De Boeck
{"title":"定时测试会影响效率分数的解释吗?","authors":"Frank Goldhammer,&nbsp;Ulf Kroehne,&nbsp;Carolin Hahnel,&nbsp;Johannes Naumann,&nbsp;Paul De Boeck","doi":"10.1111/jedm.12393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The efficiency of cognitive component skills is typically assessed with speeded performance tests. Interpreting only effective ability or effective speed as efficiency may be challenging because of the within-person dependency between both variables (speed-ability tradeoff, SAT). The present study measures efficiency as effective ability conditional on speed by controlling speed experimentally. Item-level time limits control the stimulus presentation time and the time window for responding (timed condition). The overall goal was to examine the construct validity of effective ability scores obtained from untimed and timed condition by comparing the effects of theory-based item properties on item difficulty. If such effects exist, the scores reflect how well the test-takers were able to cope with the theory-based requirements. A German subsample from PISA 2012 completed two reading component skills tasks (i.e., word recognition and semantic integration) with and without item-level time limits. Overall, the included linguistic item properties showed stronger effects on item difficulty in the timed than the untimed condition. In the semantic integration task, item properties explained the time required in the untimed condition. The results suggest that effective ability scores in the timed condition better reflect how well test-takers were able to cope with the theoretically relevant task demands.</p>","PeriodicalId":47871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Measurement","volume":"61 3","pages":"349-377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jedm.12393","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Timed Testing Affect the Interpretation of Efficiency Scores?—A GLMM Analysis of Reading Components\",\"authors\":\"Frank Goldhammer,&nbsp;Ulf Kroehne,&nbsp;Carolin Hahnel,&nbsp;Johannes Naumann,&nbsp;Paul De Boeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jedm.12393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The efficiency of cognitive component skills is typically assessed with speeded performance tests. Interpreting only effective ability or effective speed as efficiency may be challenging because of the within-person dependency between both variables (speed-ability tradeoff, SAT). The present study measures efficiency as effective ability conditional on speed by controlling speed experimentally. Item-level time limits control the stimulus presentation time and the time window for responding (timed condition). The overall goal was to examine the construct validity of effective ability scores obtained from untimed and timed condition by comparing the effects of theory-based item properties on item difficulty. If such effects exist, the scores reflect how well the test-takers were able to cope with the theory-based requirements. A German subsample from PISA 2012 completed two reading component skills tasks (i.e., word recognition and semantic integration) with and without item-level time limits. Overall, the included linguistic item properties showed stronger effects on item difficulty in the timed than the untimed condition. In the semantic integration task, item properties explained the time required in the untimed condition. The results suggest that effective ability scores in the timed condition better reflect how well test-takers were able to cope with the theoretically relevant task demands.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"volume\":\"61 3\",\"pages\":\"349-377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jedm.12393\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12393\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12393","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知部分技能的效率通常是通过速度表现测试来评估的。仅将有效能力或有效速度解释为效率可能具有挑战性,因为这两个变量之间存在人内依赖性(速度-能力权衡,SAT)。本研究通过实验控制速度,将有效能力作为速度条件来衡量效率。项目级时间限制控制了刺激呈现时间和反应时间窗口(计时条件)。总体目标是通过比较基于理论的项目属性对项目难度的影响,检验未计时和计时条件下获得的有效能力分数的建构效度。如果存在这种影响,分数就能反映出应试者应对基于理论的要求的能力。2012 年国际学生评估项目的一个德国子样本完成了两项阅读部分技能任务(即单词识别和语义整合),分别有和没有项目级别的时间限制。总体而言,在有时间限制的条件下,所包含的语言项目属性对项目难度的影响要强于无时间限制的条件。在语义整合任务中,项目属性解释了无时间限制条件下所需的时间。结果表明,计时条件下的有效能力分数能更好地反映应试者应对理论上相关任务要求的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Does Timed Testing Affect the Interpretation of Efficiency Scores?—A GLMM Analysis of Reading Components

The efficiency of cognitive component skills is typically assessed with speeded performance tests. Interpreting only effective ability or effective speed as efficiency may be challenging because of the within-person dependency between both variables (speed-ability tradeoff, SAT). The present study measures efficiency as effective ability conditional on speed by controlling speed experimentally. Item-level time limits control the stimulus presentation time and the time window for responding (timed condition). The overall goal was to examine the construct validity of effective ability scores obtained from untimed and timed condition by comparing the effects of theory-based item properties on item difficulty. If such effects exist, the scores reflect how well the test-takers were able to cope with the theory-based requirements. A German subsample from PISA 2012 completed two reading component skills tasks (i.e., word recognition and semantic integration) with and without item-level time limits. Overall, the included linguistic item properties showed stronger effects on item difficulty in the timed than the untimed condition. In the semantic integration task, item properties explained the time required in the untimed condition. The results suggest that effective ability scores in the timed condition better reflect how well test-takers were able to cope with the theoretically relevant task demands.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Educational Measurement (JEM) publishes original measurement research, provides reviews of measurement publications, and reports on innovative measurement applications. The topics addressed will interest those concerned with the practice of measurement in field settings, as well as be of interest to measurement theorists. In addition to presenting new contributions to measurement theory and practice, JEM also serves as a vehicle for improving educational measurement applications in a variety of settings.
期刊最新文献
Sequential Reservoir Computing for Log File‐Based Behavior Process Data Analyses Issue Information Exploring Latent Constructs through Multimodal Data Analysis Robustness of Item Response Theory Models under the PISA Multistage Adaptive Testing Designs Modeling Nonlinear Effects of Person‐by‐Item Covariates in Explanatory Item Response Models: Exploratory Plots and Modeling Using Smooth Functions
×
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