研究微分快速猜测对等式中种群不变性的影响。

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL Applied Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-16 DOI:10.1177/01466216221108991
Jiayi Deng, Joseph A Rios
{"title":"研究微分快速猜测对等式中种群不变性的影响。","authors":"Jiayi Deng, Joseph A Rios","doi":"10.1177/01466216221108991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Score equating is an essential tool in improving the fairness of test score interpretations when employing multiple test forms. To ensure that the equating functions used to connect scores from one form to another are valid, they must be invariant across different populations of examinees. Given that equating is used in many low-stakes testing programs, examinees' test-taking effort should be considered carefully when evaluating population invariance in equating, particularly as the occurrence of rapid guessing (RG) has been found to differ across subgroups. To this end, the current study investigated whether differential RG rates between subgroups can lead to incorrect inferences concerning population invariance in test equating. A simulation was built to generate data for two examinee subgroups (one more motivated than the other) administered two alternative forms of multiple-choice items. The rate of RG and ability characteristics of rapid guessers were manipulated. Results showed that as RG responses increased, false positive and false negative inferences of equating invariance were respectively observed at the lower and upper ends of the observed score scale. This result was supported by an empirical analysis of an international assessment. These findings suggest that RG should be investigated and documented prior to test equating, especially in low-stakes assessment contexts. A failure to do so may lead to incorrect inferences concerning fairness in equating.</p>","PeriodicalId":48300,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psychological Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9483216/pdf/10.1177_01466216221108991.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the Effect of Differential Rapid Guessing on Population Invariance in Equating.\",\"authors\":\"Jiayi Deng, Joseph A Rios\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01466216221108991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Score equating is an essential tool in improving the fairness of test score interpretations when employing multiple test forms. To ensure that the equating functions used to connect scores from one form to another are valid, they must be invariant across different populations of examinees. Given that equating is used in many low-stakes testing programs, examinees' test-taking effort should be considered carefully when evaluating population invariance in equating, particularly as the occurrence of rapid guessing (RG) has been found to differ across subgroups. To this end, the current study investigated whether differential RG rates between subgroups can lead to incorrect inferences concerning population invariance in test equating. A simulation was built to generate data for two examinee subgroups (one more motivated than the other) administered two alternative forms of multiple-choice items. The rate of RG and ability characteristics of rapid guessers were manipulated. Results showed that as RG responses increased, false positive and false negative inferences of equating invariance were respectively observed at the lower and upper ends of the observed score scale. This result was supported by an empirical analysis of an international assessment. These findings suggest that RG should be investigated and documented prior to test equating, especially in low-stakes assessment contexts. A failure to do so may lead to incorrect inferences concerning fairness in equating.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9483216/pdf/10.1177_01466216221108991.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216221108991\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216221108991","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当采用多种考试形式时,分数等值是提高考试分数解释公平性的重要工具。为了确保用于将分数从一种形式连接到另一种形式的等式函数是有效的,它们必须在不同的考生群体中保持不变。鉴于等式在许多低风险测试项目中都有使用,在评估等式中的群体不变性时,应仔细考虑考生的考试努力,特别是快速猜测(RG)的发生率在不同的亚组中有所不同。为此,目前的研究调查了亚组之间的差分RG率是否会导致关于检验等式中总体不变性的错误推断。建立了一个模拟来生成两个受试者亚组(一个比另一个更有动力)的数据,这两个亚组管理了两种可选形式的多项选择题。操纵快速猜测者的RG率和能力特征。结果表明,随着RG反应的增加,在观察到的评分表的下端和上端分别观察到等式不变性的假阳性和假阴性推断。这一结果得到了一项国际评估的实证分析的支持。这些发现表明,RG应在测试等值之前进行调查和记录,尤其是在低风险评估环境中。如果不这样做,可能会导致关于等式公平性的错误推断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Investigating the Effect of Differential Rapid Guessing on Population Invariance in Equating.

Score equating is an essential tool in improving the fairness of test score interpretations when employing multiple test forms. To ensure that the equating functions used to connect scores from one form to another are valid, they must be invariant across different populations of examinees. Given that equating is used in many low-stakes testing programs, examinees' test-taking effort should be considered carefully when evaluating population invariance in equating, particularly as the occurrence of rapid guessing (RG) has been found to differ across subgroups. To this end, the current study investigated whether differential RG rates between subgroups can lead to incorrect inferences concerning population invariance in test equating. A simulation was built to generate data for two examinee subgroups (one more motivated than the other) administered two alternative forms of multiple-choice items. The rate of RG and ability characteristics of rapid guessers were manipulated. Results showed that as RG responses increased, false positive and false negative inferences of equating invariance were respectively observed at the lower and upper ends of the observed score scale. This result was supported by an empirical analysis of an international assessment. These findings suggest that RG should be investigated and documented prior to test equating, especially in low-stakes assessment contexts. A failure to do so may lead to incorrect inferences concerning fairness in equating.

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
8.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Applied Psychological Measurement publishes empirical research on the application of techniques of psychological measurement to substantive problems in all areas of psychology and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Differential Item Functioning on Computer Adaptive Testing Under Different Conditions. Evaluating the Construct Validity of Instructional Manipulation Checks as Measures of Careless Responding to Surveys. A Mark-Recapture Approach to Estimating Item Pool Compromise. Estimating Test-Retest Reliability in the Presence of Self-Selection Bias and Learning/Practice Effects. The Improved EMS Algorithm for Latent Variable Selection in M3PL Model.
×
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