An Experimental Test of Student Verbal Reports and Teacher Evaluations as a Source of Validity Evidence for Test Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing indicate that test instructions, and by extension item objectives, presented to examinees should be sufficiently clear and detailed to help ensure that they respond as developers intend them to respond (Standard 3.20; AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999 American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]). The present study investigates the use of verbal reports, one of many sources of evidence for validity arguments, as a way to evaluate the content clarity of 30 items from a large-scale science assessment. Student reports were used to edit items and create a student-modified test form. Evaluations from expert preservice teachers were used to edit the items and create an expert-modified test form. Both experimental forms, along with the original set of 30 items, were then randomly assigned to a sample of 264 examinees. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that examinee performance on the student-modified and expert-modified forms was similar relative to performance on the original test items. Item statistics indicated that student-modified test items were equally difficult and discriminating as expert-modified test items. The implications of using student and teacher evaluations are discussed for informing test development.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".