发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Journal of outcome measurement最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Scoring and analysis of performance examinations: a comparison of methods and interpretations. 绩效考试的评分与分析:方法与解释的比较。
Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 1997-01-01
M E Lunz, R E Schumacker
{"title":"Scoring and analysis of performance examinations: a comparison of methods and interpretations.","authors":"M E Lunz,&nbsp;R E Schumacker","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to compare the results and interpretation of the data from a performance examination when four methods of analysis are used. Methods are 1) traditional summary statistics, 2) inter-judge correlations, 3) generalizability theory, and 4) the multi-facet Rasch model. Results indicated that similar sources of variance were identified using each method; however, the multi-facet Rasch model is the only method that linearized the scores and accounts for differences in the particular examination challenged by a candidate before ability estimates are calculated.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"1 3","pages":"219-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"20579310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Validating standard setting with a modified nedelsky procedure through common item test equating. 用修改后的nedelsky程序通过公共项目测试等效验证标准设置。
Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 1997-01-01
R M Smith, L J Gross
{"title":"Validating standard setting with a modified nedelsky procedure through common item test equating.","authors":"R M Smith,&nbsp;L J Gross","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is often impossible to validate cut scores set using judged item review methods due to the fact that many high stakes testing programs attempt to limit the number of common items across consecutively administered forms. However, over time, with a stable item pool, secondary links through other test administrations allow the use of common item equating to test the stability of the judged cut scores. In this study five forms of a basic science examination administered over a three year period in a national board testing program were analyzed to determine the stability of judged cut scores. The stability was determined by comparison of the judged cut scores with the equated cut scores derived by the Rasch common item equating technique. The results indicate cut scores derived from the modified Nedelsky procedure were within equating error of the Rasch equated cut scores over five administrations.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"1 2","pages":"164-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"20579307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页
0
×
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
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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