Teachers’ conceptualization of validity and reliability in classroom assessment in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment must be conducted so that the result is reliable and valid. However, in Ghana, standardised tests are not available for use by classroom teachers, therefore, classroom teachers depend on their little knowledge in conducting classroom assessments. The study explored teachers’ conceptualization of validity and reliability in classroom assessment in public senior high schools in the Kumasi Metropolis in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. The quantitative descriptive survey design was used for the study. The purposive sampling method was used to select 200 teachers for questionnaire responses on teachers’ conceptualization of validity and reliability. The data collection instrument was the questionnaire. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the items on the questionnaire was 0.85. The data analysis procedure utilized means and standard deviations. Findings showed that teachers’ conceptualization of validity and reliability enabled them to align the content of tests with learning outcomes of the curriculum unit and construct test items to solicit different types of information to make judgements of what students know. It was recommended that heads of senior high schools together with assessment experts give periodic training to teachers on congruent validity. Teachers’ conceptualization of validity and reliability will enable them to construct effective test items, and administer, grade and interpret results to enhance students’ learning.
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 | 0.049 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".