在嵌套和螺旋评分设计下,使用多面Rasch模型,评分者效应对加权综合分数的影响。

Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 2001-01-01
H M Taherbhai, M J Young
{"title":"在嵌套和螺旋评分设计下,使用多面Rasch模型,评分者效应对加权综合分数的影响。","authors":"H M Taherbhai,&nbsp;M J Young","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Constructed-response or open-ended tasks are increasingly used in recent years. Since these tasks cannot be machine-scored, variability among raters cannot be completely eliminated and their effects, when they are not modeled, can cast doubts on the reliability of the results. Besides rater effects, the estimation of student ability can also be impacted by differentially weighted tasks/items that formulate composite scores. This simulation study compares student ability estimates with their true abilities under different rater scoring designs and differentially weighted composite scores. Results indicate that the spiraled rater scoring design without modeling rater effects works as well as the nested design in which rater tendencies are modeled. As expected, differentially weighted composite scores have a confounding effect on student ability estimates. This is particularly true when open-ended tasks are weighted much more than the multiple-choice items and when rater effects interact with weighted composite scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"5 1","pages":"819-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model.\",\"authors\":\"H M Taherbhai,&nbsp;M J Young\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Constructed-response or open-ended tasks are increasingly used in recent years. Since these tasks cannot be machine-scored, variability among raters cannot be completely eliminated and their effects, when they are not modeled, can cast doubts on the reliability of the results. Besides rater effects, the estimation of student ability can also be impacted by differentially weighted tasks/items that formulate composite scores. This simulation study compares student ability estimates with their true abilities under different rater scoring designs and differentially weighted composite scores. Results indicate that the spiraled rater scoring design without modeling rater effects works as well as the nested design in which rater tendencies are modeled. As expected, differentially weighted composite scores have a confounding effect on student ability estimates. This is particularly true when open-ended tasks are weighted much more than the multiple-choice items and when rater effects interact with weighted composite scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"819-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of outcome measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

建构式回应或开放式任务近年来越来越多地被使用。由于这些任务不能用机器评分,评分者之间的可变性不能完全消除,而且当他们没有建模时,他们的影响可能会对结果的可靠性产生怀疑。除了评分效应,对学生能力的估计也会受到构成综合分数的不同加权任务/项目的影响。本模拟研究比较了学生在不同评分设计和差异加权综合评分下的能力估计与真实能力。结果表明,不模拟评分者效应的螺旋评分设计与模拟评分者倾向的嵌套评分设计一样有效。正如预期的那样,差异加权综合分数对学生能力估计有混淆效应。当开放式任务的权重远高于多项选择题,以及评分效应与加权综合分数相互作用时,这种情况尤其明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model.

Constructed-response or open-ended tasks are increasingly used in recent years. Since these tasks cannot be machine-scored, variability among raters cannot be completely eliminated and their effects, when they are not modeled, can cast doubts on the reliability of the results. Besides rater effects, the estimation of student ability can also be impacted by differentially weighted tasks/items that formulate composite scores. This simulation study compares student ability estimates with their true abilities under different rater scoring designs and differentially weighted composite scores. Results indicate that the spiraled rater scoring design without modeling rater effects works as well as the nested design in which rater tendencies are modeled. As expected, differentially weighted composite scores have a confounding effect on student ability estimates. This is particularly true when open-ended tasks are weighted much more than the multiple-choice items and when rater effects interact with weighted composite scores.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model. Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). Competency gradient for child-parent centers. Alternate forms reliability of the assessment of motor and process skills.
×
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