分值相等和概要报告

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2020-03-03 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381
Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee
{"title":"分值相等和概要报告","authors":"Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to address the necessity of subscore equating and to evaluate the performance of various equating methods for subtests. Assuming the random groups design and number-correct scoring, this paper analyzed real data and simulated data with four study factors including test dimensionality, subtest length, form difference in difficulty, and sample size. The results indicated that reporting subscores without equating provides misleading information in terms of score profiles and that reporting subscores without a pre-specified test specification brings practical issues such as constructing alternate subtest forms with comparable difficulty, conducting equating between forms with different lengths, and deciding an appropriate score scale to be reported.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"33 1","pages":"95 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subscore Equating and Profile Reporting\",\"authors\":\"Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to address the necessity of subscore equating and to evaluate the performance of various equating methods for subtests. Assuming the random groups design and number-correct scoring, this paper analyzed real data and simulated data with four study factors including test dimensionality, subtest length, form difference in difficulty, and sample size. The results indicated that reporting subscores without equating provides misleading information in terms of score profiles and that reporting subscores without a pre-specified test specification brings practical issues such as constructing alternate subtest forms with comparable difficulty, conducting equating between forms with different lengths, and deciding an appropriate score scale to be reported.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"95 - 112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Measurement in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381\",\"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/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732381","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: 4

摘要

摘要本研究的目的是解决子测验等值的必要性,并评估各种子测验等值方法的性能。假设随机分组设计和数字正确评分,本文分析了真实数据和模拟数据,包括测试维度、子测试长度、难度形式差异和样本量四个研究因素。结果表明,在没有等式的情况下报告分量表在分数概况方面提供了误导性信息,而在没有预先指定的测试规范的情况下,报告分量表带来了实际问题,如构建具有可比难度的替代子测验表、在不同长度的表格之间进行等式、,以及决定要报告的适当的分数量表。
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
Subscore Equating and Profile Reporting
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to address the necessity of subscore equating and to evaluate the performance of various equating methods for subtests. Assuming the random groups design and number-correct scoring, this paper analyzed real data and simulated data with four study factors including test dimensionality, subtest length, form difference in difficulty, and sample size. The results indicated that reporting subscores without equating provides misleading information in terms of score profiles and that reporting subscores without a pre-specified test specification brings practical issues such as constructing alternate subtest forms with comparable difficulty, conducting equating between forms with different lengths, and deciding an appropriate score scale to be reported.
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