比较Angoff、是/否和电子邮件标准定义

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Ceylan Gündeğer, N. Doğan
{"title":"比较Angoff、是/否和电子邮件标准定义","authors":"Ceylan Gündeğer, N. Doğan","doi":"10.21031/EPOD.47091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, experts’ decisions and cut-off scores obtained from Angoff, Yes/No and Ebel standard setting methods have been compared. The research data consist of 489 student scores obtained from a achievement test of 20 items and 17 experts’ decisions, made according to three different standard setting methods for this achievement test. In the analysis of data, in order to set the compliance between experts, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Angoff and Ebel methods, and Cohen’s Kappa statistics for Yes/No method have been calculated. Differences between the percentages of students, considered as successful according to three different standard setting methods, have been tested with the test of the difference between two correlated proportions. The students’ scores have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods; and the compliance between them has been examined with Cohen’s Kappa statistics. The compliance between the cutoff scores of three methods has been evaluated with Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient and the paired samples t test. At the end of this research, it is seen that the compliance of experts in the methods is at a reasonable level; there is significant difference on 0,01 error level among percentages of students considered as successful according to these three different standard setting methods and there is a compliance between students’ scores that have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods. It is concluded that there is a high relationship between Angoff and Yes/No methods; there is moderate relationship between Angoff and Ebel methods; there is no significant relationship between Yes/No and Ebel methods.","PeriodicalId":43015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD","volume":"5 1","pages":"53-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Angoff, Yes/No ve Ebel Standart Belirleme Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması\",\"authors\":\"Ceylan Gündeğer, N. Doğan\",\"doi\":\"10.21031/EPOD.47091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, experts’ decisions and cut-off scores obtained from Angoff, Yes/No and Ebel standard setting methods have been compared. The research data consist of 489 student scores obtained from a achievement test of 20 items and 17 experts’ decisions, made according to three different standard setting methods for this achievement test. In the analysis of data, in order to set the compliance between experts, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Angoff and Ebel methods, and Cohen’s Kappa statistics for Yes/No method have been calculated. Differences between the percentages of students, considered as successful according to three different standard setting methods, have been tested with the test of the difference between two correlated proportions. The students’ scores have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods; and the compliance between them has been examined with Cohen’s Kappa statistics. The compliance between the cutoff scores of three methods has been evaluated with Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient and the paired samples t test. At the end of this research, it is seen that the compliance of experts in the methods is at a reasonable level; there is significant difference on 0,01 error level among percentages of students considered as successful according to these three different standard setting methods and there is a compliance between students’ scores that have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods. It is concluded that there is a high relationship between Angoff and Yes/No methods; there is moderate relationship between Angoff and Ebel methods; there is no significant relationship between Yes/No and Ebel methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"53-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21031/EPOD.47091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology-EPOD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21031/EPOD.47091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在本研究中,专家的决定和从Angoff, Yes/No和Ebel标准制定方法获得的截止分数进行了比较。研究数据包括489名学生的成绩,这些成绩来自20个项目的成就测试和17位专家的决定,这些决定是根据三种不同的成就测试标准制定方法做出的。在数据分析中,为了设定专家之间的依从性,我们计算了Angoff和Ebel方法的Kendall’s concordance系数(W),以及Yes/No方法的Cohen’s Kappa统计量。根据三种不同的标准制定方法,被认为是成功的学生百分比之间的差异已经通过两个相关比例之间的差异测试进行了测试。根据三种方法,学生的分数被量身定制为成功和不成功的二元;它们之间的一致性已经用科恩的Kappa统计数据进行了检验。采用Pearson积矩相关系数和配对样本t检验对三种方法的临界值之间的依从性进行了评价。在本研究结束时,可以看到专家对方法的依从性处于合理水平;根据这三种不同的标准制定方法,被认为成功的学生百分比在0.01的误差水平上存在显著差异,并且根据三种方法量身定制为成功-不成功二元的学生分数之间存在一致性。结果表明,Angoff法与Yes/No法之间存在较高的相关性;Angoff法与Ebel法之间存在适度关系;Yes/ no与Ebel方法之间无显著关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Angoff, Yes/No ve Ebel Standart Belirleme Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması
In this study, experts’ decisions and cut-off scores obtained from Angoff, Yes/No and Ebel standard setting methods have been compared. The research data consist of 489 student scores obtained from a achievement test of 20 items and 17 experts’ decisions, made according to three different standard setting methods for this achievement test. In the analysis of data, in order to set the compliance between experts, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for Angoff and Ebel methods, and Cohen’s Kappa statistics for Yes/No method have been calculated. Differences between the percentages of students, considered as successful according to three different standard setting methods, have been tested with the test of the difference between two correlated proportions. The students’ scores have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods; and the compliance between them has been examined with Cohen’s Kappa statistics. The compliance between the cutoff scores of three methods has been evaluated with Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient and the paired samples t test. At the end of this research, it is seen that the compliance of experts in the methods is at a reasonable level; there is significant difference on 0,01 error level among percentages of students considered as successful according to these three different standard setting methods and there is a compliance between students’ scores that have been tailored to binary as successful-unsuccessful according to three methods. It is concluded that there is a high relationship between Angoff and Yes/No methods; there is moderate relationship between Angoff and Ebel methods; there is no significant relationship between Yes/No and Ebel methods.
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
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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