评价学生成长百分位数的随机和系统误差

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2020-07-15 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139
C. Wells, S. Sireci
{"title":"评价学生成长百分位数的随机和系统误差","authors":"C. Wells, S. Sireci","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Student growth percentiles (SGPs) are currently used by several states and school districts to provide information about individual students as well as to evaluate teachers, schools, and school districts. For SGPs to be defensible for these purposes, they should be reliable. In this study, we examine the amount of systematic and random error in SGPs by simulating test scores for four grades and estimating SGPs using one, two, or three conditioning years. The results indicated that, although the amount of systematic error was small to moderate, the amount of random error was substantial, regardless of the number of conditioning years. For example, the standard error of the SGP estimates associated with an SGP value of 56 was 22.2 resulting in a 68% confidence interval that would range from 33.8 to 78.2 when using three conditioning years. The results are consistent with previous research and suggest SGP estimates are too imprecise to be reported for the purpose of understanding students’ progress over time.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"349 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Random and Systematic Error in Student Growth Percentiles\",\"authors\":\"C. Wells, S. Sireci\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Student growth percentiles (SGPs) are currently used by several states and school districts to provide information about individual students as well as to evaluate teachers, schools, and school districts. For SGPs to be defensible for these purposes, they should be reliable. In this study, we examine the amount of systematic and random error in SGPs by simulating test scores for four grades and estimating SGPs using one, two, or three conditioning years. The results indicated that, although the amount of systematic error was small to moderate, the amount of random error was substantial, regardless of the number of conditioning years. For example, the standard error of the SGP estimates associated with an SGP value of 56 was 22.2 resulting in a 68% confidence interval that would range from 33.8 to 78.2 when using three conditioning years. The results are consistent with previous research and suggest SGP estimates are too imprecise to be reported for the purpose of understanding students’ progress over time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"349 - 361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1789139","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: 2

摘要

摘要学生增长百分位数(SGP)目前被几个州和学区用于提供学生个人信息以及评估教师、学校和学区。为了使SGP能够用于这些目的,它们应该是可靠的。在这项研究中,我们通过模拟四个年级的考试成绩,并使用一年、两年或三年的条件年来估计SGP,来检验SGP中的系统性和随机性误差。结果表明,尽管系统误差的大小是小到中等的,但无论调节年限如何,随机误差的大小都是巨大的。例如,与SGP值为56相关的SGP估计的标准误差为22.2,导致在使用三个条件年时,68%的置信区间在33.8至78.2之间。研究结果与之前的研究一致,表明SGP估计值过于不精确,无法用于了解学生随时间的进步。
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
Evaluating Random and Systematic Error in Student Growth Percentiles
ABSTRACT Student growth percentiles (SGPs) are currently used by several states and school districts to provide information about individual students as well as to evaluate teachers, schools, and school districts. For SGPs to be defensible for these purposes, they should be reliable. In this study, we examine the amount of systematic and random error in SGPs by simulating test scores for four grades and estimating SGPs using one, two, or three conditioning years. The results indicated that, although the amount of systematic error was small to moderate, the amount of random error was substantial, regardless of the number of conditioning years. For example, the standard error of the SGP estimates associated with an SGP value of 56 was 22.2 resulting in a 68% confidence interval that would range from 33.8 to 78.2 when using three conditioning years. The results are consistent with previous research and suggest SGP estimates are too imprecise to be reported for the purpose of understanding students’ progress over time.
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
2.50
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