Generalizability theory reliability of written expression curriculum-based measurement in universal screening.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of written expression curriculum-based measurement (WE-CBM) in the context of universal screening from a generalizability theory framework. Students in second through fifth grade (n = 145) participated in the study. The sample included 54% female students, 49% White students, 23% African American students, 17% Hispanic students, 8% Asian students, and 3% of students identified as 2 or more races. Of the sample, 8% were English Language Learners and 6% were students receiving special education. Three WE-CBM probes were administered for 7 min each at 3 time points across 1 year. Writing samples were scored for commonly used WE-CBM metrics (e.g., correct minus incorrect word sequences; CIWS). Results suggest that nearly half the variance in WE-CBM is related to unsystematic error and that conventional screening procedures (i.e., the use of one 3-min sample) do not yield scores with adequate reliability for relative or absolute decisions about student performance. In most grades, three 3-min writing samples (or 2 longer duration samples) were required for adequate reliability for relative decisions, and three 7-min writing samples would not yield adequate reliability for relative decisions about within-year student growth. Implications and recommendations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it