The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reliability of Grading Work in Mathematics
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Even greater levels of inconsistency were found in teachers' scoring of a geometry paper (Starch and Elliott, 1913).
“Even greater levels of inconsistency were found in teachers’ scoring of a geometry paper showing the solution to a problem (Starch and Elliott, 1913).”
From Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently) (2014) · cites this paper as Starch and Elliott, 1913
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently)
Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054 · Cited by 326
Grant, D., & Green, W. B. (2013) · Empirical Economics · doi:10.1007/s00181-012-0578-0 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C.
- ORCID
- Elliott, Edward C.
- Venue
- The School Review
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1913-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 254-259
- ISSN
- 0036-6773 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002533321
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 82.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The School Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- rating reliability, mathematics assessment, test scoring, inter-rater reliability, student achievement evaluation
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
