基于测量评分的自动书面表达课程的准确性

IF 3.3 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Canadian Journal of School Psychology Pub Date : 2020-12-17 DOI:10.1177/0829573520987753
Sterett H. Mercer, Joanna Cannon, Bonita Squires, Yue Guo, Ella Pinco
{"title":"基于测量评分的自动书面表达课程的准确性","authors":"Sterett H. Mercer, Joanna Cannon, Bonita Squires, Yue Guo, Ella Pinco","doi":"10.1177/0829573520987753","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examined the extent to which automated written expression curriculum-based measurement (aWE-CBM) can be accurately used to computer score student writing samples for screening and progress monitoring. Students (n = 174) with learning difficulties in Grades 1 to 12 who received 1:1 academic tutoring through a community-based organization completed narrative writing samples in the fall and spring across two academic years. The samples were evaluated using four automated and hand-calculated WE-CBM scoring metrics. Results indicated automated and hand-calculated scores were highly correlated at all four timepoints for counts of total words written (rs = 1.00), words spelled correctly (rs = .99–1.00), correct word sequences (CWS; rs = .96–.97), and correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS; rs = .86–.92). For CWS and CIWS, however, automated scores systematically overestimated hand-calculated scores, with an unacceptable amount of error for CIWS for some types of decisions. These findings provide preliminary evidence that aWE-CBM can be used to efficiently score narrative writing samples, potentially improving the feasibility of implementing multi-tiered systems of support in which the written expression skills of large numbers of students are screened and monitored.","PeriodicalId":46445,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0829573520987753","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Automated Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement Scoring\",\"authors\":\"Sterett H. Mercer, Joanna Cannon, Bonita Squires, Yue Guo, Ella Pinco\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0829573520987753\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examined the extent to which automated written expression curriculum-based measurement (aWE-CBM) can be accurately used to computer score student writing samples for screening and progress monitoring. Students (n = 174) with learning difficulties in Grades 1 to 12 who received 1:1 academic tutoring through a community-based organization completed narrative writing samples in the fall and spring across two academic years. The samples were evaluated using four automated and hand-calculated WE-CBM scoring metrics. Results indicated automated and hand-calculated scores were highly correlated at all four timepoints for counts of total words written (rs = 1.00), words spelled correctly (rs = .99–1.00), correct word sequences (CWS; rs = .96–.97), and correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS; rs = .86–.92). For CWS and CIWS, however, automated scores systematically overestimated hand-calculated scores, with an unacceptable amount of error for CIWS for some types of decisions. These findings provide preliminary evidence that aWE-CBM can be used to efficiently score narrative writing samples, potentially improving the feasibility of implementing multi-tiered systems of support in which the written expression skills of large numbers of students are screened and monitored.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0829573520987753\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520987753\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520987753","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们研究了基于书面表达课程的自动化测量(aWE CBM)在多大程度上可以准确地用于对学生写作样本进行计算机评分,以进行筛选和进度监控。学生(n = 174)在1至12年级有学习困难的学生,他们通过一个社区组织接受了1:1的学术辅导,在秋季和春季完成了两学年的叙事写作样本。使用四个自动和手工计算的WE-CBM评分指标对样本进行评估。结果表明,在所有四个时间点,自动化和手工计算的写作总字数得分高度相关(rs = 1.00),拼写正确的单词(rs = .99–1.00),正确的单词序列(CWS;rs = .96–.97),并更正减去不正确的单词序列(CIWS;rs = .86–.92)。然而,对于CWS和CIWS,自动评分系统地高估了手工计算的评分,在某些类型的决策中,CIWS的错误量是不可接受的。这些发现提供了初步证据,表明aWE CBM可以用于有效地对叙事写作样本进行评分,有可能提高实施多层支持系统的可行性,在该系统中,对大量学生的书面表达技能进行筛选和监测。
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
Accuracy of Automated Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement Scoring
We examined the extent to which automated written expression curriculum-based measurement (aWE-CBM) can be accurately used to computer score student writing samples for screening and progress monitoring. Students (n = 174) with learning difficulties in Grades 1 to 12 who received 1:1 academic tutoring through a community-based organization completed narrative writing samples in the fall and spring across two academic years. The samples were evaluated using four automated and hand-calculated WE-CBM scoring metrics. Results indicated automated and hand-calculated scores were highly correlated at all four timepoints for counts of total words written (rs = 1.00), words spelled correctly (rs = .99–1.00), correct word sequences (CWS; rs = .96–.97), and correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS; rs = .86–.92). For CWS and CIWS, however, automated scores systematically overestimated hand-calculated scores, with an unacceptable amount of error for CIWS for some types of decisions. These findings provide preliminary evidence that aWE-CBM can be used to efficiently score narrative writing samples, potentially improving the feasibility of implementing multi-tiered systems of support in which the written expression skills of large numbers of students are screened and monitored.
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
Canadian Journal of School Psychology
Canadian Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journals of School Psychology (CJSP) is the official journal of the Canadian Association of School Psychologists and publishes papers focusing on the interface between psychology and education. Papers may reflect theory, research, and practice of psychology in education, as well as book and test reviews. The journal is aimed at practitioners, but is subscribed to by university libraries and individuals (i.e. psychologists). CJSP has become the major reference for practicing school psychologists and students in graduate educational and school psychology programs in Canada.
期刊最新文献
Adolescent Dating Violence Prevention: Teaching Social Justice Oriented Skills and Strategies to Undergraduate-Level Teachers and Social Workers Introduction to Special Issue: How Research Reform in Psychology Can Influence Professional School Psychology Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in School Psychology Science and Scholarship: Changing Training and Practice in the Field of School Psychology Math Abilities Among Children with Neurodevelopmental Difficulties: Understanding Cognitive Factors and Evaluating a Pilot Intervention The Role of Reciprocated Friendships in the Behavioral Correlates of Sociometric Categories
×
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