MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132885336

Comparison and Properties of Correlational and Agreement Methods for Determining Whether or Not to Report Subtest Scores

2014· article· en· W2132885336 on OpenAlexaff
Оксана Бабенко, W. Todd Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsEstimatorScale (ratio)Test (biology)PsychologyPopulationEconometricsClinical psychologyMathematicsMedicineGeographyCartographyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale testing agencies often report subtest scores in addition to reporting the total test score. But is there evidence that subtests reveal differences in student performances? Three methods for determining whether subscore reporting is warranted were examined and evaluated using large-scale data as well as samples of various sizes for Reading and Mathematics assessments. Results revealed that subtests did not differ among themselves and added no value over the total test. The method statistics were determined to be accurate and precise estimators of the population parameters. Implications for subscore reporting are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.439
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.793
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4390.793
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.764
GPT teacher head0.667
Teacher spread0.097 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational ResearchSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207