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":"绩效考试的评分与分析:方法与解释的比较。","authors":"M E Lunz,&nbsp;R E Schumacker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoring and analysis of performance examinations: a comparison of methods and interpretations.\",\"authors\":\"M E Lunz,&nbsp;R E Schumacker\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of outcome measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较使用四种分析方法时绩效检查数据的结果和解释。方法有:1)传统的汇总统计,2)判断间相关性,3)可泛化理论,4)多面Rasch模型。结果表明,每种方法都能识别出相似的方差来源;然而,多方面的Rasch模型是唯一的方法,线性化分数,并在计算能力估计之前考虑候选人所挑战的特定考试的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scoring and analysis of performance examinations: a comparison of methods and interpretations.

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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
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
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