评估自动评分测量和算法偏差的心理测量学方法

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Educational Measurement Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1111/jedm.12335
Matthew S. Johnson, Xiang Liu, Daniel F. McCaffrey
{"title":"评估自动评分测量和算法偏差的心理测量学方法","authors":"Matthew S. Johnson,&nbsp;Xiang Liu,&nbsp;Daniel F. McCaffrey","doi":"10.1111/jedm.12335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the increasing use of automated scores in operational testing settings comes the need to understand the ways in which they can yield biased and unfair results. In this paper, we provide a brief survey of some of the ways in which the predictive methods used in automated scoring can lead to biased, and thus unfair automated scores. After providing definitions of fairness from machine learning and a psychometric framework to study them, we demonstrate how modeling decisions, like omitting variables, using proxy measures or confounded variables, and even the optimization criterion in estimation can lead to biased and unfair automated scores. We then introduce two simple methods for evaluating bias, evaluate their statistical properties through simulation, and apply to an item from a large-scale reading assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":47871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric Methods to Evaluate Measurement and Algorithmic Bias in Automated Scoring\",\"authors\":\"Matthew S. Johnson,&nbsp;Xiang Liu,&nbsp;Daniel F. McCaffrey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jedm.12335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>With the increasing use of automated scores in operational testing settings comes the need to understand the ways in which they can yield biased and unfair results. In this paper, we provide a brief survey of some of the ways in which the predictive methods used in automated scoring can lead to biased, and thus unfair automated scores. After providing definitions of fairness from machine learning and a psychometric framework to study them, we demonstrate how modeling decisions, like omitting variables, using proxy measures or confounded variables, and even the optimization criterion in estimation can lead to biased and unfair automated scores. We then introduce two simple methods for evaluating bias, evaluate their statistical properties through simulation, and apply to an item from a large-scale reading assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"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.12335\",\"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.12335","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

随着在操作测试设置中越来越多地使用自动化分数,需要了解它们可能产生偏见和不公平结果的方式。在本文中,我们简要介绍了自动评分中使用的预测方法可能导致有偏见,从而导致不公平的自动评分的一些方式。在提供了机器学习公平性的定义和研究它们的心理测量框架之后,我们展示了建模决策,如省略变量,使用代理度量或混淆变量,甚至是估计中的优化标准,如何导致有偏见和不公平的自动分数。然后,我们介绍了两种评估偏差的简单方法,通过模拟评估它们的统计特性,并将其应用于大规模阅读评估中的一个项目。
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
Psychometric Methods to Evaluate Measurement and Algorithmic Bias in Automated Scoring

With the increasing use of automated scores in operational testing settings comes the need to understand the ways in which they can yield biased and unfair results. In this paper, we provide a brief survey of some of the ways in which the predictive methods used in automated scoring can lead to biased, and thus unfair automated scores. After providing definitions of fairness from machine learning and a psychometric framework to study them, we demonstrate how modeling decisions, like omitting variables, using proxy measures or confounded variables, and even the optimization criterion in estimation can lead to biased and unfair automated scores. We then introduce two simple methods for evaluating bias, evaluate their statistical properties through simulation, and apply to an item from a large-scale reading assessment.

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