Accuracy of performance-test linking based on a many-facet Rasch model
Open accessAbstract
Performance assessments, in which human raters assess examinee performance in practical tasks, have attracted much attention in various assessment contexts involving measurement of higher-order abilities. However, difficulty persists in that ability measurement accuracy strongly depends on rater and task characteristics such as rater severity and task difficulty. To resolve this problem, various item response theory (IRT) models incorporating rater and task parameters, including many-facet Rasch models (MFRMs), have been proposed. When applying such IRT models to datasets comprising results of multiple performance tests administered to different examinees, test linking is needed to unify the scale for model parameters estimated from individual test results. In test linking, test administrators generally need to design multiple tests such that raters and tasks partially overlap. The accuracy of linking under this design is highly reliant on the numbers of common raters and tasks. However, the numbers of common raters and tasks required to ensure high accuracy in test linking remain unclear, making it difficult to determine appropriate test designs. We therefore empirically evaluate the accuracy of IRT-based performance-test linking under common rater and task designs. Concretely, we conduct evaluations through simulation experiments that examine linking accuracy based on a MFRM while changing numbers of common raters and tasks with various factors that possibly affect linking accuracy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The systematic link design is a method for creating a rater-examinee assignment under conditions where test linking is possible.
“The systematic link design is a method for creating a rater-examinee assignment under conditions where test linking is possible.”
From A Bayesian many-facet Rasch model with Markov modeling for rater severity drift (2022) · cites this paper as Uto, 2021a
In “Experiments > Evaluating effects of missing data” (page unavailable), the paper describes an algorithm for assigning raters to evaluation targets under conditions where test linking is possible and says it generalizes that algorithm into a “rater set design.” This supports the assignment-method description, but our copy does not call it a “systematic link design.” (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A generalized many-facet Rasch model and its Bayesian estimation using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo
Uto, M., & Ueno, M. (2020) · Behaviormetrika · doi:10.1007/s41237-020-00115-7 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- Abosalem Y Beyond translation: Adapting a performance-task-based assessment of critical thinking ability for use in Rwanda International Journal of Secondary Education 2016 4 1 1 11 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20160401.11 · DOI
- Andrich D A rating formulation for ordered response categories Psychometrika 1978 43 4 561 573 10.1007/BF02293814 · DOI
- Arai S Mayekawa S A comparison of equating methods and linking designs for developing an item pool under item response theory Behaviormetrika 2011 38 1 16 10.2333/bhmk.38.1 · DOI
- de Ayala RJ The theory and practice of item response theory 2009 New York Guilford Press
- Bernardin HJ Thomason S Buckley MR Kane JS Rater rating-level bias and accuracy in performance appraisals: The impact of rater personality, performance management competence, and rater accountability Human Resource Management 2016 55 2 321 340 10.1002/hrm.21678 · DOI
- Born S Fink A Spoden C Frey A Evaluating different equating setups in the continuous item pool calibration for computerized adaptive testing Frontiers in Psychology 2019 10 1 14 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01277 31244717 PMC6563622 · DOI
- Dorans NJ Pommerich M Holland PW Linking and aligning scores and scales 2007 Berlin Springer
- Eckes T Examining rater effects in TestDaF writing and speaking performance assessments: A many-facet Rasch analysis Language Assessment Quarterly 2005 2 3 197 221 10.1207/s15434311laq0203_2 · DOI
- Engelhard G Constructing rater and task banks for performance assessments Journal of Outcome Measurement 1997 1 1 19 33 9661713
- Fujimori S Simulation study for examining the vertical equating by concurrent calibration Bulletin of Human Science 1998 20 34 47
- Harik P Clauser BE Grabovsky I Nungester RJ Swanson D Nandakumar R An examination of rater drift within a generalizability theory framework Journal of Educational Measurement 2009 46 1 43 58 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2009.01068.x · DOI · Paper page
- Ishii T Songmuang P Ueno M Maximum clique algorithm and its approximation for uniform test form assembly IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 2014 7 1 83 95 10.1109/TLT.2013.2297694 · DOI
- Izumi T Yamano S Yamada T Kanamori Y Tsushima H Investigation of the equating accuracy under the influence of common item size: Application of IRT test equating to the large-scale high school proficiency test data Journal for the Science of Schooling 2012 13 49 57
- Jodoin MG Keller LA Swaminathan H A comparison of linear, fixed common item, and concurrent parameter estimation equating procedures in capturing academic growth The Journal of Experimental Education 2003 71 229 250 10.1080/00220970309602064 · DOI
- Joo S-H Lee P Stark S Evaluating anchor-item designs for concurrent calibration with the GGUM Applied Psychological Measurement 2017 41 2 83 96 10.1177/0146621616673997 29881079 PMC5978621 · DOI
- Kaskowitz GS de Ayala RJ The effect of error in item parameter estimates on the test response function method of linking Applied Psychological Measurement 2001 25 1 39 52 10.1177/01466216010251003 · DOI
- Kassim NLA Judging behaviour and rater errors: An application of the many-facet Rasch model GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 2011 11 3 179 197
- Kim D-I Choi SW Lee G Um KR A comparison of the common-item and random-groups equating designs using empirical data International Journal of Selection and Assessment 2008 16 2 83 92 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00413.x · DOI
- Kolen MJ Brennan RL Test equating, scaling, and linking 2014 Berlin Springer
- Lee WC Ban JC A comparison of IRT linking procedures Applied Measurement in Education 2009 23 1 23 48 10.1080/08957340903423537 · DOI
- Li YH Tam HP Tompkins LJ A comparison of using the fixed common-precalibrated parameter method and the matched characteristic curve method for linking multiple-test items International Journal of Testing 2004 4 3 267 293 10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_5 · DOI
- Linacre JM Many-faceted Rasch measurement 1989 San Diego MESA Press
- Linacre JM Linking constants with common items and judges Rasch Measurement Transactions 1998 12 1 621
- van der Linden WJ Linear models for optimal test design 2005 Berlin Springer
- van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden, & G. A. Glas (Eds.) Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 1–25): Springer Netherlands.
- Masters G A Rasch model for partial credit scoring Psychometrika 1982 47 2 149 174 10.1007/BF02296272 · DOI · Paper page
- Michaelides MP Haertel EH Selection of common items as an unrecognized source of variability in test equating: A bootstrap approximation assuming random sampling of common items Applied Measurement in Education 2014 27 1 46 57 10.1080/08957347.2013.853069 · DOI
- Monseur C Berezner A The computation of equating errors in international surveys in education Journal of Applied measurement 2007 8 3 323 335 17804897
- Muraki, E. (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden, R. K. Hambleton, & E Muraki (Eds.) Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–164): Springer.
- Muraki E Hombo C Lee Y Equating and linking of performance assessments Applied Psychological Measurement 2000 24 325 337 10.1177/01466210022031787 · DOI
- Myford CM Wolfe EW Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part I Journal of Applied Measurement 2003 4 386 422 14523257
- O’Neill, T. R., & Lunz, M. E. (1997). A method to compare rater severity across several administrations. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 3–17).
- Patz RJ Junker B Applications and extensions of MCMC in IRT: Multiple item types, missing data, and rated responses Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 1999 24 4 342 366 10.3102/10769986024004342 · DOI
- Patz RJ Junker BW Johnson MS Mariano LT The hierarchical rater model for rated test items and its application to largescale educational assessment data Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2002 27 4 341 384 10.3102/10769986027004341 · DOI
- Rosen Y Tager M Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking Journal of Educational Computing Research 2014 50 2 249 270 10.2190/EC.50.2.f · DOI
- Schendel R Tolmie A Assessment techniques and students’ higher-order thinking skills Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2017 42 5 673 689 10.1080/02602938.2016.1177484 · DOI
- Songmuang P Ueno M Bees algorithm for construction of multiple test forms in e-testing IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 2011 4 3 209 221 10.1109/TLT.2010.29 · DOI
- Tavakol M Pinner G Using the many-facet Rasch model to analyse and evaluate the quality of objective structured clinical examination: A non-experimental cross-sectional design BMJ Open 2019 9 9 1 9 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029208 PMC6731829 31494607 · DOI
- Uto, M. (2019). Rater-effect IRT model integrating supervised LDA for accurate measurement of essay writing ability. In Proceedings of the international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 494–506).
- Uto M Duc Thien N Ueno M Group optimization to maximize peer assessment accuracy using item response theory and integer programming IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 2020 13 1 91106 10.1109/TLT.2019.2896966 · DOI
- Uto M Ueno M Empirical comparison of item response theory models with rater’s parameters Heliyon, Elsevier 2018 4 5 1 32 PMC5948474 29761162
- Uysal I Ibrahim S Comparison of item response theory test equating methods for mixed format tests International Online Journal of Educational Sciences 2016 8 2 1 11 10.15345/iojes.2016.02.001 · DOI
- Way WD Protecting the integrity of computerized testing item pools Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 1998 17 4 17 27 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00632.x · DOI
- Wesolowski, B. C., Wind, S. A., & Engelhard, G. (2017). Evaluating differential rater functioning over time in the context of solo music performance assessment. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education (212), 75–98.
- Wind SA Guo W Exploring the combined effects of rater misfit and differential rater functioning in performance assessments Educational and Psychological Measurement 2019 79 5 962 987 10.1177/0013164419834613 31488921 PMC6713980 · DOI
- Wolfe EW Moulder BC Myford CM Detecting differential rater functioning over time (DRIFT) using a Rasch multi-faceted rating scale model Journal of Applied measurement 2001 2 3 256 280 12011510
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Bayesian many-facet Rasch model with Markov modeling for rater severity drift
Uto, M. (2022) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-022-01997-z · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“…u jrt = k ∈ K as where d rm is a rater-specific step parameter denoting the severity for rater r of transitioning from score m − 1 to m , which is often used to examine the central tendency and the range restriction of each rater (Eckes, 2015; Myford & Wolfe, 2004; Qiu et al., 2022; Uto, 2021a).”
MethodSelf-citation
- Authors
- Uto, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Electro-Communications (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Uto, Masaki
- ORCID
- Uto, Masaki
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2020-11-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1440-1454
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- PMC
- PMC8367909
- OpenAlex
- W3099767135
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 2.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17H04726, 19H05663)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Keywords
- performance evaluation, test linking, many-facet Rasch model, rater severity, task difficulty, item response theory, practical skills assessment, test design
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Educational Measurement, Humans, Research Personnel
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