衡量监考人员在高风险评估中决策的可变性:提高数字时代的考试安全

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
William Belzak, J. R. Lockwood, Yigal Attali
{"title":"衡量监考人员在高风险评估中决策的可变性:提高数字时代的考试安全","authors":"William Belzak,&nbsp;J. R. Lockwood,&nbsp;Yigal Attali","doi":"10.1111/emip.12591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Remote proctoring, or monitoring test takers through internet-based, video-recording software, has become critical for maintaining test security on high-stakes assessments. The main role of remote proctors is to make judgments about test takers' behaviors and decide whether these behaviors constitute rule violations. Variability in proctor decision making, or the degree to which humans/proctors make different decisions about the same test-taking behaviors, can be problematic for both test takers and test users (e.g., universities). In this paper, we measure variability in proctor decision making over time on a high-stakes English language proficiency test. Our results show that (1) proctors systematically differ in their decision making and (2) these differences are trait-like (i.e., ranging from lenient to strict), but (3) systematic variability in decisions can be reduced. Based on these findings, we recommend that test security providers conduct regular measurements of proctors’ judgments and take actions to reduce variability in proctor decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":"43 1","pages":"52-65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emip.12591","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Variability in Proctor Decision Making on High-Stakes Assessments: Improving Test Security in the Digital Age\",\"authors\":\"William Belzak,&nbsp;J. R. Lockwood,&nbsp;Yigal Attali\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/emip.12591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Remote proctoring, or monitoring test takers through internet-based, video-recording software, has become critical for maintaining test security on high-stakes assessments. The main role of remote proctors is to make judgments about test takers' behaviors and decide whether these behaviors constitute rule violations. Variability in proctor decision making, or the degree to which humans/proctors make different decisions about the same test-taking behaviors, can be problematic for both test takers and test users (e.g., universities). In this paper, we measure variability in proctor decision making over time on a high-stakes English language proficiency test. Our results show that (1) proctors systematically differ in their decision making and (2) these differences are trait-like (i.e., ranging from lenient to strict), but (3) systematic variability in decisions can be reduced. Based on these findings, we recommend that test security providers conduct regular measurements of proctors’ judgments and take actions to reduce variability in proctor decision making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"52-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emip.12591\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12591\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12591","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

远程监考,即通过基于互联网的录像软件对考生进行监控,已成为维护高风险评估考试安全的关键。远程监考人员的主要职责是对考生的行为做出判断,并决定这些行为是否构成违规。监考决策的可变性,即人类/监考人员对相同的考试行为做出不同决策的程度,可能会给考生和考试使用者(如大学)带来问题。在本文中,我们测量了在一次高风险的英语语言能力测试中,监考人员的决策随时间推移而产生的变化。我们的研究结果表明:(1) 监考人员的决策存在系统性差异;(2) 这些差异具有特质性(即从宽到严),但 (3) 决策的系统性差异是可以减少的。基于这些发现,我们建议考试安全提供商定期对监考人员的判断进行测量,并采取行动减少监考人员决策的变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measuring Variability in Proctor Decision Making on High-Stakes Assessments: Improving Test Security in the Digital Age

Measuring Variability in Proctor Decision Making on High-Stakes Assessments: Improving Test Security in the Digital Age

Remote proctoring, or monitoring test takers through internet-based, video-recording software, has become critical for maintaining test security on high-stakes assessments. The main role of remote proctors is to make judgments about test takers' behaviors and decide whether these behaviors constitute rule violations. Variability in proctor decision making, or the degree to which humans/proctors make different decisions about the same test-taking behaviors, can be problematic for both test takers and test users (e.g., universities). In this paper, we measure variability in proctor decision making over time on a high-stakes English language proficiency test. Our results show that (1) proctors systematically differ in their decision making and (2) these differences are trait-like (i.e., ranging from lenient to strict), but (3) systematic variability in decisions can be reduced. Based on these findings, we recommend that test security providers conduct regular measurements of proctors’ judgments and take actions to reduce variability in proctor decision making.

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
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
×
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