重新定义快速反应作为高风险评估中的速度指标

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2021.1987904
R. Feinberg, D. Jurich, S. Wise
{"title":"重新定义快速反应作为高风险评估中的速度指标","authors":"R. Feinberg, D. Jurich, S. Wise","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2021.1987904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Previous research on rapid responding tends to implicitly consider examinees as either engaging in solution behavior or purely guessing. However, particularly in a high-stakes testing context, examinees perceiving that they are running out of time may consider the remaining items for less time than necessary to provide a fully informed response, but longer than a truly rapid guess. This partial consideration results in a response that misrepresents true ability, but with accuracy above the level of pure chance. To address this limitation of existing methodology, we propose an empirical approach that attempts to disentangle fully and partially informed responses to be used as a preliminary measure of the extent to which speededness may be distorting test score validity. We first illustrate and validate the approach using an experimental dataset in which the amount of time per item was manipulated. Next, applications of this approach are demonstrated using observational data in a more realistic context through four operational exams in which speededness is unknown.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"312 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconceptualizing Rapid Responses as a Speededness Indicator in High-Stakes Assessments\",\"authors\":\"R. Feinberg, D. Jurich, S. Wise\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08957347.2021.1987904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Previous research on rapid responding tends to implicitly consider examinees as either engaging in solution behavior or purely guessing. However, particularly in a high-stakes testing context, examinees perceiving that they are running out of time may consider the remaining items for less time than necessary to provide a fully informed response, but longer than a truly rapid guess. This partial consideration results in a response that misrepresents true ability, but with accuracy above the level of pure chance. To address this limitation of existing methodology, we propose an empirical approach that attempts to disentangle fully and partially informed responses to be used as a preliminary measure of the extent to which speededness may be distorting test score validity. We first illustrate and validate the approach using an experimental dataset in which the amount of time per item was manipulated. Next, applications of this approach are demonstrated using observational data in a more realistic context through four operational exams in which speededness is unknown.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"312 - 326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2021.1987904\",\"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/10.1080/08957347.2021.1987904","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: 0

摘要

以往关于快速反应的研究倾向于含蓄地认为考生要么参与解决问题的行为,要么纯粹是猜测。然而,特别是在高风险的考试环境中,考生意识到他们的时间不多了,他们考虑剩下的题目的时间可能比提供一个全面的信息反应所需的时间要少,但比真正快速猜测的时间要长。这种不完全的考虑导致的结果是错误地反映了真实的能力,但其准确性高于纯粹的偶然水平。为了解决现有方法的这一局限性,我们提出了一种经验方法,试图解开完全和部分知情的反应,作为速度可能扭曲测试分数有效性的程度的初步测量。我们首先使用实验数据集来说明和验证该方法,其中每个项目的时间量被操纵。接下来,通过四个未知速度的操作测试,在更现实的背景下使用观测数据演示了这种方法的应用。
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
Reconceptualizing Rapid Responses as a Speededness Indicator in High-Stakes Assessments
ABSTRACT Previous research on rapid responding tends to implicitly consider examinees as either engaging in solution behavior or purely guessing. However, particularly in a high-stakes testing context, examinees perceiving that they are running out of time may consider the remaining items for less time than necessary to provide a fully informed response, but longer than a truly rapid guess. This partial consideration results in a response that misrepresents true ability, but with accuracy above the level of pure chance. To address this limitation of existing methodology, we propose an empirical approach that attempts to disentangle fully and partially informed responses to be used as a preliminary measure of the extent to which speededness may be distorting test score validity. We first illustrate and validate the approach using an experimental dataset in which the amount of time per item was manipulated. Next, applications of this approach are demonstrated using observational data in a more realistic context through four operational exams in which speededness is unknown.
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