随着时间的推移保持分数尺度:五种评分方法的比较

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2023.2172015
S. Y. Kim, Won‐Chan Lee
{"title":"随着时间的推移保持分数尺度:五种评分方法的比较","authors":"S. Y. Kim, Won‐Chan Lee","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2023.2172015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study evaluates various scoring methods including number-correct scoring, IRT theta scoring, and hybrid scoring in terms of scale-score stability over time. A simulation study was conducted to examine the relative performance of five scoring methods in terms of preserving the first two moments of scale scores for a population in a chain of linking with multiple test forms. Simulation factors included 1) the number of forms linked back to the initial form, 2) the pattern in mean shift, and 3) the proportion of common items. Results showed that scoring methods that operate with number-correct scores generally outperform those that are based on IRT proficiency estimators ( ) in terms of reproducing the mean and standard deviation of scale scores. Scoring methods performed differently as a function of patterns in a group proficiency change.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"36 1","pages":"60 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maintaining Score Scales Over Time: A Comparison of Five Scoring Methods\",\"authors\":\"S. Y. Kim, Won‐Chan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08957347.2023.2172015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study evaluates various scoring methods including number-correct scoring, IRT theta scoring, and hybrid scoring in terms of scale-score stability over time. A simulation study was conducted to examine the relative performance of five scoring methods in terms of preserving the first two moments of scale scores for a population in a chain of linking with multiple test forms. Simulation factors included 1) the number of forms linked back to the initial form, 2) the pattern in mean shift, and 3) the proportion of common items. Results showed that scoring methods that operate with number-correct scores generally outperform those that are based on IRT proficiency estimators ( ) in terms of reproducing the mean and standard deviation of scale scores. Scoring methods performed differently as a function of patterns in a group proficiency change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"60 - 79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"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/10.1080/08957347.2023.2172015\",\"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/10.1080/08957347.2023.2172015","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

摘要本研究根据量表得分随时间的稳定性评估了各种评分方法,包括数字正确评分、IRTθ评分和混合评分。进行了一项模拟研究,以检验五种评分方法在保留多个测试形式链接链中人群的量表得分前两个矩方面的相对性能。模拟因素包括1)链接回初始表格的表格数量,2)均值偏移的模式,以及3)常见项目的比例。结果表明,在再现量表得分的平均值和标准差方面,使用数字正确得分的评分方法通常优于基于IRT熟练度估计量()的评分方法。评分方法在小组熟练程度变化中作为模式的函数表现不同。
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
Maintaining Score Scales Over Time: A Comparison of Five Scoring Methods
ABSTRACT This study evaluates various scoring methods including number-correct scoring, IRT theta scoring, and hybrid scoring in terms of scale-score stability over time. A simulation study was conducted to examine the relative performance of five scoring methods in terms of preserving the first two moments of scale scores for a population in a chain of linking with multiple test forms. Simulation factors included 1) the number of forms linked back to the initial form, 2) the pattern in mean shift, and 3) the proportion of common items. Results showed that scoring methods that operate with number-correct scores generally outperform those that are based on IRT proficiency estimators ( ) in terms of reproducing the mean and standard deviation of scale scores. Scoring methods performed differently as a function of patterns in a group proficiency change.
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