Cited by 90Student Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and PedagogyEducational and Psychological Assessments

Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond

Open access
Rasooli, Amirhossein, Zandi, Hamed, DeLuca, Christopher·2018·Studies in Educational Evaluation

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.008

Cites

173 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IR)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Rasooli, Amirhossein
Venue
Studies in Educational Evaluation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
56
Pages
164-181
ISSN
0191-491X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782375796
Cited by
90
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
21.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies In Educational Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • QSpace (Queen's University Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
Keywords
classroom assessment, assessment fairness, educational accountability, student learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review