Construction of Economics Achievement Test for Assessment of Students
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 study was carried out to construct a valid and reliable test in Economics for secondary school students. Two research questions were drawn to guide the establishment of validity and reliability for the Economics Achievement Test (EAT). It is a multiple choice objective test of five options with 100 items. A sample of 1000 students was randomly drawn to determine the validity and reliability of the test. After item analysis, the result showed that the Economics achievement test has a high face and content validity. The test item validity was determined through Difficulty and discrimination indices. A difficult index or p-value of 0.5 for each item was considered after applying the formula of correction for guessing. The discrimination index was established through point biserial statistics for each item with a correction coefficient of at least 0.3. The test has a reliability coefficient of 0.95 established through the use of Kuder-Richardson formula 20.The test is valid and reliable for assessing students internally and prepare them for external examinations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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