Gauging Uncertainty in Test-to-Curriculum Alignment Indices

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
A. Traynor, Tingxuan Li, Shuqi Zhou
{"title":"Gauging Uncertainty in Test-to-Curriculum Alignment Indices","authors":"A. Traynor, Tingxuan Li, Shuqi Zhou","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1732387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the development of large-scale school achievement tests, panels of independent subject-matter experts use systematic judgmental methods to rate the correspondence between a given test’s items and performance objective statements. The individual experts’ ratings may then be used to compute summary indices to quantify the match between a given test and its target item domain. The magnitude of alignment index variability across experts within a panel, and randomly-sampled panels, is largely unknown, however. Using rater-by-item data from alignment reviews of 14 US states’ achievement tests, we examine observed distributions and estimate standard errors for three alignment indices developed by Webb. Our results suggest that alignment decisions based on the recommended criterion for the balance-of-representation index may often be uncertain, and that the criterion for the depth-of-knowledge consistency index should perhaps be reconsidered. We also examine current recommendations about the number of expert panelists required to compute these alignment indices.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732387","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732387","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT During the development of large-scale school achievement tests, panels of independent subject-matter experts use systematic judgmental methods to rate the correspondence between a given test’s items and performance objective statements. The individual experts’ ratings may then be used to compute summary indices to quantify the match between a given test and its target item domain. The magnitude of alignment index variability across experts within a panel, and randomly-sampled panels, is largely unknown, however. Using rater-by-item data from alignment reviews of 14 US states’ achievement tests, we examine observed distributions and estimate standard errors for three alignment indices developed by Webb. Our results suggest that alignment decisions based on the recommended criterion for the balance-of-representation index may often be uncertain, and that the criterion for the depth-of-knowledge consistency index should perhaps be reconsidered. We also examine current recommendations about the number of expert panelists required to compute these alignment indices.
衡量测试中的不确定性与课程一致性指标
摘要在大规模学校成绩测试的发展过程中,独立学科专家小组使用系统的判断方法来评估给定测试项目与成绩目标陈述之间的对应性。然后,可以使用个人专家的评级来计算汇总指数,以量化给定测试与其目标项目领域之间的匹配。然而,一个小组内的专家和随机抽样的小组之间的比对指数变化幅度在很大程度上是未知的。使用来自美国14个州成绩测试的一致性审查的逐项评分数据,我们检查了Webb开发的三个一致性指数的观测分布并估计了标准误差。我们的研究结果表明,基于代表性平衡指数的推荐标准的调整决策往往是不确定的,也许应该重新考虑知识深度一致性指数的标准。我们还研究了目前关于计算这些对齐指数所需专家小组成员数量的建议。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
×
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