利用概括性理论比较评分表和分析评分表得出的绩效任务分数的可靠性

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Funda Nalbantoğlu Yılmaz
{"title":"利用概括性理论比较评分表和分析评分表得出的绩效任务分数的可靠性","authors":"Funda Nalbantoğlu Yılmaz","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the performance assessment, unbiased and accurate scorings depend not only on raters but also on accuracy of scoring keys. It could be confusing to choose the type of scoring key for educators in most situations. The study aims to find whether there is a difference between ratings with rating scale and analytic rubric and to compare reliability of scores given by the same raters with both scoring keys to the same performance tasks using generalizability theory. The results of this study would be a guide for implementers to determine the type of scoring keys for scoring performances. By the analyses, results reveal that scores obtained with the rating scale have higher reliability compared to scores obtained from the analytic rubric. Interviews related to both scoring keys reveal that for the scoring of performance tasks of teacher candidates, the rating scale is economic in terms of time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":"83 ","pages":"Article 101413"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the reliability of performance task scores obtained from rating scale and analytic rubric using the generalizability theory\",\"authors\":\"Funda Nalbantoğlu Yılmaz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the performance assessment, unbiased and accurate scorings depend not only on raters but also on accuracy of scoring keys. It could be confusing to choose the type of scoring key for educators in most situations. The study aims to find whether there is a difference between ratings with rating scale and analytic rubric and to compare reliability of scores given by the same raters with both scoring keys to the same performance tasks using generalizability theory. The results of this study would be a guide for implementers to determine the type of scoring keys for scoring performances. By the analyses, results reveal that scores obtained with the rating scale have higher reliability compared to scores obtained from the analytic rubric. Interviews related to both scoring keys reveal that for the scoring of performance tasks of teacher candidates, the rating scale is economic in terms of time.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000920\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000920","RegionNum":2,"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

在成绩评估中,公正准确的评分不仅取决于评分者,还取决于评分标准的准确性。在大多数情况下,教育工作者在选择评分标准类型时可能会感到困惑。本研究的目的是找出使用等级量表和分析评分标准进行评分之间是否存在差异,并利用概括性理论比较同一评分者使用这两种评分标准对相同的绩效任务进行评分的可靠性。本研究的结果将为实施者确定表演评分的评分标准类型提供指导。分析结果表明,与分析评分标准相比,使用评分量表获得的分数具有更高的可靠性。与两种评分标准有关的访谈显示,在对师范生的绩效任务进行评分时,等级量表在时间上比较经济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the reliability of performance task scores obtained from rating scale and analytic rubric using the generalizability theory
In the performance assessment, unbiased and accurate scorings depend not only on raters but also on accuracy of scoring keys. It could be confusing to choose the type of scoring key for educators in most situations. The study aims to find whether there is a difference between ratings with rating scale and analytic rubric and to compare reliability of scores given by the same raters with both scoring keys to the same performance tasks using generalizability theory. The results of this study would be a guide for implementers to determine the type of scoring keys for scoring performances. By the analyses, results reveal that scores obtained with the rating scale have higher reliability compared to scores obtained from the analytic rubric. Interviews related to both scoring keys reveal that for the scoring of performance tasks of teacher candidates, the rating scale is economic in terms of time.
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
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
×
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