基于人工智能的自动评分的有效性论证:以论文评分为例

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Educational Measurement Pub Date : 2022-06-08 DOI:10.1111/jedm.12333
Steve Ferrara, Saed Qunbar
{"title":"基于人工智能的自动评分的有效性论证:以论文评分为例","authors":"Steve Ferrara,&nbsp;Saed Qunbar","doi":"10.1111/jedm.12333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article, we argue that automated scoring engines should be transparent and construct relevant—that is, as much as is currently feasible. Many current automated scoring engines cannot achieve high degrees of scoring accuracy without allowing in some features that may not be easily explained and understood and may not be obviously and directly relevant to the target assessment construct. We address the current limitations on evidence and validity arguments for scores from automated scoring engines from the points of view of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (i.e., construct relevance, construct representation, and fairness) and emerging principles in Artificial Intelligence (e.g., explainable AI, an examinee's right to explanations, and principled AI). We illustrate these concepts and arguments for automated essay scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":47871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Measurement","volume":"59 3","pages":"288-313"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity Arguments for AI-Based Automated Scores: Essay Scoring as an Illustration\",\"authors\":\"Steve Ferrara,&nbsp;Saed Qunbar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jedm.12333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this article, we argue that automated scoring engines should be transparent and construct relevant—that is, as much as is currently feasible. Many current automated scoring engines cannot achieve high degrees of scoring accuracy without allowing in some features that may not be easily explained and understood and may not be obviously and directly relevant to the target assessment construct. We address the current limitations on evidence and validity arguments for scores from automated scoring engines from the points of view of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (i.e., construct relevance, construct representation, and fairness) and emerging principles in Artificial Intelligence (e.g., explainable AI, an examinee's right to explanations, and principled AI). We illustrate these concepts and arguments for automated essay scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"volume\":\"59 3\",\"pages\":\"288-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12333\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jedm.12333","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在本文中,我们认为自动评分引擎应该是透明的和结构相关的——也就是说,尽可能多的是当前可行的。如果不考虑一些可能不容易解释和理解的特征,并且可能与目标评估结构不明显和直接相关,那么许多当前的自动评分引擎无法实现高度的评分准确性。我们从教育和心理测试标准(即构建相关性,构建代表性和公平性)和人工智能新兴原则(例如,可解释的人工智能,考生的解释权和原则性人工智能)的角度解决了自动评分引擎得分的证据和有效性论点的当前限制。我们举例说明这些概念和论点自动作文分数。
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
Validity Arguments for AI-Based Automated Scores: Essay Scoring as an Illustration

In this article, we argue that automated scoring engines should be transparent and construct relevant—that is, as much as is currently feasible. Many current automated scoring engines cannot achieve high degrees of scoring accuracy without allowing in some features that may not be easily explained and understood and may not be obviously and directly relevant to the target assessment construct. We address the current limitations on evidence and validity arguments for scores from automated scoring engines from the points of view of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (i.e., construct relevance, construct representation, and fairness) and emerging principles in Artificial Intelligence (e.g., explainable AI, an examinee's right to explanations, and principled AI). We illustrate these concepts and arguments for automated essay scores.

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
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Educational Measurement (JEM) publishes original measurement research, provides reviews of measurement publications, and reports on innovative measurement applications. The topics addressed will interest those concerned with the practice of measurement in field settings, as well as be of interest to measurement theorists. In addition to presenting new contributions to measurement theory and practice, JEM also serves as a vehicle for improving educational measurement applications in a variety of settings.
期刊最新文献
Sequential Reservoir Computing for Log File‐Based Behavior Process Data Analyses Issue Information Exploring Latent Constructs through Multimodal Data Analysis Robustness of Item Response Theory Models under the PISA Multistage Adaptive Testing Designs Modeling Nonlinear Effects of Person‐by‐Item Covariates in Explanatory Item Response Models: Exploratory Plots and Modeling Using Smooth Functions
×
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