To What Degree Does Rapid Guessing Distort Aggregated Test Scores? A Meta-analytic Investigation

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Educational Assessment Pub Date : 2022-08-25 DOI:10.1080/10627197.2022.2110465

Joseph A. Rios, Jiayi Deng, Samuel D. Ihlenfeldt

引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT The present meta-analysis sought to quantify the average degree of aggregated test score distortion due to rapid guessing (RG). Included studies group-administered a low-stakes cognitive assessment, identified RG via response times, and reported the rate of examinees engaging in RG, the percentage of RG responses observed, and/or the degree of score distortion in aggregated test scores due to RG. The final sample consisted of 25 studies and 39 independent samples comprised of 443,264 unique examinees. Results demonstrated that an average of 28.3% of examinees engaged in RG (21% were deemed to engage in RG on a nonnegligible number of items) and 6.89% of item responses were classified as rapid guesses. Across 100 effect sizes, RG was found to negatively distort aggregated test scores by an average of 0.13 standard deviations; however, this relationship was moderated by both test content area and filtering procedure.

查看原文本刊更多论文

快速猜测在多大程度上扭曲了综合测试成绩？元分析研究

摘要本荟萃分析旨在量化快速猜测（RG）导致的综合测试分数失真的平均程度。纳入的研究组进行了低风险认知评估，通过反应时间确定了RG，并报告了受试者参与RG的比率、观察到的RG反应的百分比和/或由于RG导致的总分失真程度。最终样本由25项研究和39个独立样本组成，这些样本由443264名独特的受试者组成。结果表明，平均28.3%的考生参与了RG（21%的考生被认为参与了不可忽略的项目数量的RG），6.89%的项目回答被归类为快速猜测。在100个效应大小中，RG被发现以0.13个标准差的平均值负面扭曲了汇总测试分数；然而，这种关系受到测试内容区域和过滤程序的调节。

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

Educational Assessment EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Educational Assessment publishes original research and scholarship on the assessment of individuals, groups, and programs in educational settings. It includes theory, methodological approaches and empirical research in the appraisal of the learning and achievement of students and teachers, young children and adults, and novices and experts. The journal reports on current large-scale testing practices, discusses alternative approaches, presents scholarship on classroom assessment practices and includes assessment topics debated at the national level. It welcomes both conceptual and empirical pieces and encourages articles that provide a strong bridge between theory and/or empirical research and the implications for educational policy and/or practice.