评估期望和不期望效果的验证:来自交叉分类混合效应模型的见解

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice Pub Date : 2023-04-05 DOI:10.1111/emip.12553
Xuejun Ryan Ji, Amery D. Wu
{"title":"评估期望和不期望效果的验证:来自交叉分类混合效应模型的见解","authors":"Xuejun Ryan Ji,&nbsp;Amery D. Wu","doi":"10.1111/emip.12553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Cross-Classified Mixed Effects Model (CCMEM) has been demonstrated to be a flexible framework for evaluating reliability by measurement specialists. Reliability can be estimated based on the variance components of the test scores. Built upon their accomplishment, this study extends the CCMEM to be used for evaluating validity evidence. Validity is viewed as the coherence among the elements of a measurement system. As such, validity can be evaluated by the user-reasoned desired or undesired fixed and random effects. Based on the data of ePIRLS 2016 Reading Assessment, we demonstrate how to obtain evidence for reliability and validity by CCMEM. We conclude with a discussion on the practicality and benefits of this validation method.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation as Evaluating Desired and Undesired Effects: Insights From Cross-Classified Mixed Effects Model\",\"authors\":\"Xuejun Ryan Ji,&nbsp;Amery D. Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/emip.12553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Cross-Classified Mixed Effects Model (CCMEM) has been demonstrated to be a flexible framework for evaluating reliability by measurement specialists. Reliability can be estimated based on the variance components of the test scores. Built upon their accomplishment, this study extends the CCMEM to be used for evaluating validity evidence. Validity is viewed as the coherence among the elements of a measurement system. As such, validity can be evaluated by the user-reasoned desired or undesired fixed and random effects. Based on the data of ePIRLS 2016 Reading Assessment, we demonstrate how to obtain evidence for reliability and validity by CCMEM. We conclude with a discussion on the practicality and benefits of this validation method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12553\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12553","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交叉分类混合效应模型(CCMEM)已被测量专家证明是一个灵活的评估可靠性的框架。信度可以根据测试分数的方差分量来估计。在此基础上,本研究将CCMEM扩展至评估效度证据。效度被视为一个测量系统的要素之间的一致性。因此,有效性可以通过用户推理的期望或不期望的固定和随机效果来评估。本文以ePIRLS 2016阅读测评数据为基础,论证了如何利用CCMEM获取信度和效度证据。最后讨论了该验证方法的实用性和效益。
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
Validation as Evaluating Desired and Undesired Effects: Insights From Cross-Classified Mixed Effects Model

The Cross-Classified Mixed Effects Model (CCMEM) has been demonstrated to be a flexible framework for evaluating reliability by measurement specialists. Reliability can be estimated based on the variance components of the test scores. Built upon their accomplishment, this study extends the CCMEM to be used for evaluating validity evidence. Validity is viewed as the coherence among the elements of a measurement system. As such, validity can be evaluated by the user-reasoned desired or undesired fixed and random effects. Based on the data of ePIRLS 2016 Reading Assessment, we demonstrate how to obtain evidence for reliability and validity by CCMEM. We conclude with a discussion on the practicality and benefits of this validation method.

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
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Editorial Issue Cover On the Cover: Gendered Trajectories of Digital Literacy Development: Insights from a Longitudinal Cohort Study Digital Module 36: Applying Intersectionality Theory to Educational Measurement
×
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