Examining Rater Performance on the CELBAN Speaking: A Many-Facets Rasch Measurement Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally educated nurses’ (IENs) English language proficiency is critical to professional licensure as communication is a key competency for safe practice. The Canadian English Language Benchmark Assessment for Nurses (CELBAN) is Canada’s only Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) referenced examination used in the context of healthcare regulation. This high-stakes assessment claims proof of proficiency for IENs seeking licensure in Canada and a measure of public safety for nursing regulators. Understanding the quality of rater performance when examination results are used for high-stakes decisions is crucial to maintaining speaking test quality as it involves judgement, and thus requires strong reliability evidence (Koizumi et al., 2017). This study examined rater performance on the CELBAN Speaking component using a Many-Facets Rasch Measurement (MFRM). Specifically, this study identified CELBAN rater reliability in terms of consistency and severity, rating bias, and use of rating scale. The study was based on a sample of 115 raters across eight test sites in Canada and results on 2698 examinations across four parallel versions. Findings demonstrated relatively high inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability, and that CLB-based speaking descriptors (CLB 6-9) provided sufficient information for raters to discriminate examinees’ oral proficiency. There was no influence of test site or test version, offering validity evidence to support test use for high-stakes purposes. Grammar, among the eight speaking criteria, was identified as the most difficult criterion on the scale, and the one demonstrating most rater bias. This study highlights the value of MFRM analysis in rater performance research with implications for rater training. This study is one of the first research studies using MFRM with a CLB-referenced high-stakes assessment within the Canadian context.
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 | 0.043 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".