Staff View for: Application of Generalizability Theory t

 Staff view

You must be logged in to Tag Records

Application of Generalizability Theory to Concept-Map Assessment Research. CSE Report 640 /

Yue Yin and Richard J. Shavelson.

Book Cover
Main Author: Yin, Yue.
Other Names: Shavelson, Richard J.,
Published: [Place of publication not identified] : Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, 2004.
Topics: Formative Evaluation. | Generalizability Theory. | Concept Mapping. | Comparative Analysis.
Genres: Reports, Evaluative.
Online Access: ERIC - Full text online
Tags: Add


Spaces will separate tags.
Use quotes for multi-word tags.

000 02980cam a22004333u 4500
001 8823472
003 UIUdb
005 20181222210116.0
006 m o d
007 cr |n|||||||||
008 041101s2004 xx ||| ot ||| u eng d
035 |a(MvI) 9A000000476147
035 |a(ERIC)ED483407
040 |aUIU|beng|cUIU|dUIU|dUIUdb
049 |aUIUU|unouc
086 0 |aED 1.310/2:483407
100 1 |aYin, Yue.
245 10|aApplication of Generalizability Theory to Concept-Map Assessment Research. CSE Report 640 /|cYue Yin and Richard J. Shavelson.
264 1|a[Place of publication not identified] :|bDistributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,|c2004.
300 |a1 online resource (31 pages)
336 |atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337 |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338 |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
500 |aAvailability: Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE)/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), 300 Charles E. Young Drive North, GSE&IS Bldg., 3rd Flr./Mailbox 951522, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1522. Tel: 310-206-1532.|5ericd
500 |aSponsoring Agency: California Univ., Los Angeles. Center for the Study of Evaluation.|5ericd
500 |aAbstractor: Author.|5ericd
506 |aAccess rights: Yes.|2ericd
516 |aText (Reports, Evaluative).
520 |aIn the first part of this paper we discuss the feasibility of using Generalizability (G) Theory to examine the dependability of concept map assessments and to design a concept map assessment for a particular practical application. In the second part, we apply G theory to compare the technical qualities of two frequently used mapping techniques: construct-a-map with created linking phrases (C) and construct-a-map with selected linking phrases (S). We explore some measurement facets that influence concept-map scores and estimate how to optimize different concept mapping techniques by varying the conditions for different facets. We found that C and S were not technically equivalent. The G coefficients for S were larger than those for C. Furthermore, a D study showed that fewer items (propositions) would be needed for S than C to reach desired level of G coefficients if only one occasion could be afforded. Therefore, S might be a better candidate than C in the large-scale summative assessment, while C would be preferred as a formative assessment in classroom.
521 8 |aResearchers.|bericd
524 |aCenter for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing CRESST.|2ericd
650 07|aFormative Evaluation.|2ericd
650 07|aGeneralizability Theory.|2ericd
650 07|aConcept Mapping.|2ericd
650 07|aComparative Analysis.|2ericd
655 7|aReports, Evaluative.|2ericd
700 1 |aShavelson, Richard J.,|eauthor.
710 2 |aCalifornia Univ., Los Angeles. Center for the Study of Evaluation.
856 40|3ERIC - Full text online|uhttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED483407

Staff View for: Application of Generalizability Theory t