2019
DOI: 10.1111/jedm.12226
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conceptualizing Rater Judgments and Rating Processes for Rater‐Mediated Assessments

Abstract: Rater‐mediated assessments exhibit scoring challenges due to the involvement of human raters. The quality of human ratings largely determines the reliability, validity, and fairness of the assessment process. Our research recommends that the evaluation of ratings should be based on two aspects: a theoretical model of human judgment and an appropriate measurement model for evaluating these judgments. In rater‐mediated assessments, the underlying constructs and response processes may require the use of different… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The numbers of ratees (500 or 1,000) and assessment criteria (3 or 5) were manipulated across the simulation conditions. Note that we applied assessment criteria rather than items that have been commonly utilized in IRT models to describe the characteristics of evaluation indicators because assessment criteria or domains are more frequently employed than items in the literature on rater-mediated assessments (e.g., Jin & Wang, 2018 ; Wang & Engelhard, 2019 ). Each criterion was judged by raters on a five-point rating scale.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The numbers of ratees (500 or 1,000) and assessment criteria (3 or 5) were manipulated across the simulation conditions. Note that we applied assessment criteria rather than items that have been commonly utilized in IRT models to describe the characteristics of evaluation indicators because assessment criteria or domains are more frequently employed than items in the literature on rater-mediated assessments (e.g., Jin & Wang, 2018 ; Wang & Engelhard, 2019 ). Each criterion was judged by raters on a five-point rating scale.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like MICHI estimation, the row averaging method [107][108][109] relies on bivariate frequencies f ij (see Equation ( 7)). A matrix B with entries b ij = log( f ij / f ji ) is formed.…”
Section: Row Averaging Methods (Ra)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Linacre (1989) developed MFRM to accommodate a many-faceted data structure, especially for introducing raters as a third facet in addition to students and items in educational testing settings. MFRM is widely used for examining rater effects in performance assessments (Engelhard, 1994;Engelhard, 1996;Myford & Wolfe, 2003, 2004Wang & Engelhard, 2019a;Wind & Engelhard, 2012;Wolfe, 2004;Wolfe & McVay, 2012).…”
Section: A Lens Model For Judgment Process In Creativity Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%