The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability
Open accessOverview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 · Cited by 1,509
Stemler, S. E. (2020) · Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/96jp-xz07 · Cited by 992
A review of rubric use in higher education
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930902862859 · Cited by 917
The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002 · Cited by 839
Teaching With Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Andrade, H. G. (2005) · College Teaching · doi:10.3200/ctch.53.1.27-31 · Cited by 436
Metadata
- Authors
- Moskal, B., & Leydens, J. A.
- Venue
- Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
- Publisher
- University of Massachusetts Amherst
- Published
- 2020-03-20
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 10
- OpenAlex
- W1569154263
- Cited by
- 501
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7275/q7rm-gg74
- The paper
- Moskal, B., & Leydens, J. A. (2020). Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability. Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst). https://doi.org/10.7275/q7rm-gg74
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
