Accuracy of Automated Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement Scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the extent to which automated written expression curriculum-based measurement (aWE-CBM) can be accurately used to computer score student writing samples for screening and progress monitoring. Students ( n = 174) with learning difficulties in Grades 1 to 12 who received 1:1 academic tutoring through a community-based organization completed narrative writing samples in the fall and spring across two academic years. The samples were evaluated using four automated and hand-calculated WE-CBM scoring metrics. Results indicated automated and hand-calculated scores were highly correlated at all four timepoints for counts of total words written ( rs = 1.00), words spelled correctly ( rs = .99–1.00), correct word sequences (CWS; rs = .96–.97), and correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS; rs = .86–.92). For CWS and CIWS, however, automated scores systematically overestimated hand-calculated scores, with an unacceptable amount of error for CIWS for some types of decisions. These findings provide preliminary evidence that aWE-CBM can be used to efficiently score narrative writing samples, potentially improving the feasibility of implementing multi-tiered systems of support in which the written expression skills of large numbers of students are screened and monitored.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".