How do test-takers rate their effort? A comparative analysis of self-report and log file data

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Róbert Csányi , Gyöngyvér Molnár
{"title":"How do test-takers rate their effort? A comparative analysis of self-report and log file data","authors":"Róbert Csányi ,&nbsp;Gyöngyvér Molnár","doi":"10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The present study investigates students' test-taking effort by integrating and comparing traditional self-report questionnaire data and students' test-taking behavior, based on log data analyses. Previous studies have shown that different methods often lead to different results. A computer-based measure of complex problem-solving in uncertain situations was used to minimize the influence of factual knowledge on test performance. K-means cluster analysis was used to build groups of students differing in test-taking effort, resulting in 3 distinct groups. The correlation between students' test-taking effort and test performance proved to be weaker based on the self-reported questionnaire data than on their actual test-taking behavior. Both the self-report questionnaire and the log data showed a decrease in test-taking effort during the test. The number of clicks played the largest role in predicting performance. Results suggest that (1) self-report questionnaire data are not consistent with students' actual test-taking behavior and (2) it's not necessary to make the maximum effort to obtain valid test results, but a certain level of effort is needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48336,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Individual Differences","volume":"106 ","pages":"Article 102340"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608023000845","RegionNum":1,"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: 0

Abstract

The present study investigates students' test-taking effort by integrating and comparing traditional self-report questionnaire data and students' test-taking behavior, based on log data analyses. Previous studies have shown that different methods often lead to different results. A computer-based measure of complex problem-solving in uncertain situations was used to minimize the influence of factual knowledge on test performance. K-means cluster analysis was used to build groups of students differing in test-taking effort, resulting in 3 distinct groups. The correlation between students' test-taking effort and test performance proved to be weaker based on the self-reported questionnaire data than on their actual test-taking behavior. Both the self-report questionnaire and the log data showed a decrease in test-taking effort during the test. The number of clicks played the largest role in predicting performance. Results suggest that (1) self-report questionnaire data are not consistent with students' actual test-taking behavior and (2) it's not necessary to make the maximum effort to obtain valid test results, but a certain level of effort is needed.

考生如何评价他们的努力?自我报告和日志文件数据的比较分析
本研究基于日志数据分析,通过整合和比较传统的自我报告问卷数据和学生的考试行为,调查学生的考试努力。先前的研究表明,不同的方法往往会导致不同的结果。在不确定的情况下,使用基于计算机的复杂问题解决措施来最大限度地减少事实知识对考试成绩的影响。K-means聚类分析用于建立不同考生努力程度的学生群体,产生3个不同的群体。根据自我报告的问卷数据,学生的考试努力与考试成绩之间的相关性弱于他们的实际考试行为。自我报告问卷和日志数据都显示,在测试期间,参加测试的努力有所减少。点击量在预测性能方面发挥了最大作用。结果表明:(1)自我报告的问卷数据与学生的实际考试行为不一致;(2)没有必要尽最大努力获得有效的考试结果,但需要一定程度的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning and Individual Differences
Learning and Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Learning and Individual Differences is a research journal devoted to publishing articles of individual differences as they relate to learning within an educational context. The Journal focuses on original empirical studies of high theoretical and methodological rigor that that make a substantial scientific contribution. Learning and Individual Differences publishes original research. Manuscripts should be no longer than 7500 words of primary text (not including tables, figures, references).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信