holistic critical thinking scoring rubric (hctsr)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric

1994, Assessment Update

Related papers

Purpose To examine validity evidence of local graduation competency examination scores from seven medical schools using shared cases and to provide rater training protocols and guidelines for scoring patient notes (PNs). Method Between May and August 2016, clinical cases were developed, shared, and administered across seven medical schools (990 students participated). Raters were calibrated using training protocols, and guidelines were developed collaboratively across sites to standardize scoring. Data included scores from standardized patient encounters for history taking, physical examination, and PNs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine scores from the different assessment components. Generalizability studies (G-studies) using variance components were conducted to estimate reliability for composite scores. Results Validity evidence was collected for response process (rater perception), internal structure (variance components, reliability), relations to other variables (interassessment correlations), and consequences (composite score). Student performance varied by case and task. In the PNs, justification of differential diagnosis was the most discriminating task. G-studies showed that schools accounted for less than 1% of total variance; however, for the PNs, there were differences in scores for varying cases and tasks across schools, indicating a school effect. Composite score reliability was maximized when the PN was weighted between 30% and 40%. Raters preferred using case-specific scoring guidelines with clear pointscoring systems. Conclusions This multisite study presents validity evidence for PN scores based on scoring rubric and case-specific scoring guidelines that offer rigor and feedback for learners. Variability in PN scores across participating sites may signal different approaches to teaching clinical reasoning among medical schools.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 2019

Rater-mediated assessments are assessments in which raters evaluate test-taker performances and use rating scale categories to describe the level of performance on one or more domains. In many cases, rubrics and performance-level descriptors provide guidance for raters' judgmental processes as they use rating-scale categories to describe the level of test-taker performances. Even when automated scoring procedures are used, human judgments guide the development and evaluation of the algorithms that ultimately score test-taker responses. Researchers and practitioners worldwide use rater-mediated assessments to evaluate test-taker performances across a variety of settings and content areas, including educational performance assessments (e.g., writing or music assessments), language proficiency assessments, and personnel evaluation, among others. In general, individuals who use rater-mediated assessments do so because they believe that they provide more relevant insight into test-taker locations on a particular construct compared to assessments that can be scored without rater judgments. However, because human judgment plays a central role in the scoring procedures for rater-mediated assessments, additional considerations are warranted in evaluations of the reliability, validity, and fairness of these procedures. In particular, many researchers have expressed concerns with the susceptibility of rater-mediated assessments to idiosyncrasies in human judgment that could threaten their psychometric quality. In response, researchers have proposed a wide range of indicators for evaluating these procedures that provide information regarding rater consistency (e.g., rater agreement and reliability statistics), rater accuracy (e.g., raters' alignment with expert ratings), systematic biases related to test-taker characteristics, idiosyncratic use of rating scales (e.g., central tendency), and random errors in judgment.

Assessing Writing, 2015

Because rubrics are the foundation of a rater's scoring process, principled rubric use requires systematic review as rubrics are adopted and adapted (Crusan, 2010, p. 72) into different local contexts. However, detailed accounts of rubric adaptations are somewhat rare. This article presents a mixed-methods (Brown, 2015) study assessing the functioning of a wellknown rubric (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hugley 1981, p. 30) according to both Rasch measurement and profile analysis (n = 524), which were respectively used to analyze the scale structure and then to describe how well the rubric was classifying examinees. Upon finding that there were concerns about a lack of distinction within the rubric's scale structure, the authors decided to adapt this rubric according to theoretical and empirical criteria. The resulting scale structure was then piloted by two program outsiders and analyzed again according to Rasch measurement, placement being measured by profile analysis (n = 80). While the revised rubric can continue to be fine-tuned, this study describes how one research team developed an ongoing rubric analysis, something that these authors recommend be developed more regularly in other contexts that use high-stakes performance assessment.

… Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2000

Nakisha disagreed and said that there were more numbers between 3.4 and 3.5.

Scoring productive skills is usually difficult if raters are not well prepared and if they do not use analytic scales. Sometimes, even when scales are used, there may be differences in the scores given by each rater. That is why double marking is so important. When there are big differences in the scores given, it may be thought that some raters may not have developed a solid understanding of what each scale category represents and thus tend to use the different categories in an indiscriminate fashion. In some cases, the rater may not have sufficient background or expertise in order to make the fine discriminations that are required to employ the scale categories consistently. Some raters may use the rating scales reliably when evaluating the responses of some subgroups of examinees, but they do not use those scales reliably when evaluating the responses of other examinee subgroups (or perhaps when rating examinees on some of the tasks, but not on other tasks). Some raters are sensitive to fatigue effects (or inattention). As a rating session proceeds, these raters may tire (or their attention may wane), which may result in their becoming increasingly inconsistent in their application of the rating scales over time. This paper presents some of the problems raters have to face when scoring written compositions, and explains how FACETS can help identify those raters who are not being consistent in their scoring.

Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 2017

The aim of this study was to determine the extent at which graded-category rating scales and rubrics contribute to inter-rater reliability. The research was designed as a correlational study. Study group consisted of 82 students attending sixth grade and three writing course teachers in a private elementary school. A performance task was administered to students and student works were divided into two randomly. The teachers first conducted independent scoring on the works in group one by using the graded category rating scale, and then they scored the works in groups two with rubrics. Raters reliability was estimated by intraclass correlation coefficient, generalizability theory (G-theory) and many-facet Rasch model. The results indicated higher inter-rater reliability when graded category rating scale was used. Moreover qualitative data revealed that raters prefer using graded category rating scale in situations where they need to do quick scoring in short intervals. It is recommended that teachers use graded-category rating scale as a practical tool for quick scoring with the aim of determining student achievement with grades rather than giving detailed feedback.

Researchers of high-stakes, subjectively scored writing assessments have done much work to better understand the process that raters go through in applying a rating scale to a language performance to arrive at a score. However, there is still unexplained, systematic variability in rater scoring that resists rater training (see Hoyt & Kerns, 1999; McNamara, 1996; Weigle, 2002; Weir, 2005). The consideration of individual differences in rater cognition may explain some of this rater variability. This mixed-method exploratory case study (Yin, 2009) examined rater decision making in a high-stakes writing assessment for preservice teachers in Quebec, Canada, focussing on individual differences in decision-making style, or “stylistic differences in cognitive style that could affect decision-making” (Thunholm, 2004, p. 932). The General Decision Making Style Inventory questionnaire (Scott & Bruce, 1995) was administered to six raters of a high-stakes writing exam in Quebec, and information on the following rater behaviours was also collected for their potential for providing additional information on individual decision-making style (DMS): (a) the frequency at which a rater decides to defer his or her score, (b) the underuse of failing score levels, and (c) the comments provided by raters during the exam rating about their decisions (collected through “write-aloud” protocols; Gigerenzer & Hoffrage, 1995). The relative merits of each of these sources of data are discussed in terms of their potential for tapping into the construct of rater DMS. Although score effects of DMS have yet to be established, it is concluded that despite the exploratory nature of this study, there is potential for the consideration of individual sociocognitive differences in accounting for some rater variability in scoring.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2009

Three studies explored both the advantages of and subjects' preferences for a disaggregated judgment procedure and a holistic one. The task in our first two studies consisted of evaluating colleges; the third study asked participants to evaluate job applicants. Holistic ratings consisted of providing an overall evaluation while considering all of the characteristics of the evaluation objects; disaggregated ratings consisted of evaluating each cue independently. Participants also made paired comparisons of the evaluation objects. We constructed preference orders for the disaggregated method by aggregating these ratings (unweighted or weighted characteristics). To compare the holistic, disaggregated, and weighted-disaggregated method we regressed the four cues on the participant's holistic rating, on the linearly aggregated disaggregated ratings, and on the average weighted disaggregated rating, using the participant's “importance points” for each cue as weights. Both types of combined disaggregated ratings related more closely to the cues in terms of proportion of variance accounted for in Experiments 1 and 2. In addition, the disaggregated ratings were more closely related to the paired-comparison orderings, but Experiment 2 showed that this was true for a small set (10) but not a large set (60) of evaluation objects. Experiment 3 tested the “gamesmanship” hypothesis: People prefer holistic ratings because it is easier to incorporate illegitimate but appealing criteria into one's judgment. The results suggested that the disaggregated procedure generally produced sharper distinctions between the most relevant and least relevant cues. Participants in all three of these studies preferred the holistic ratings despite their statistical inferiority. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 2014

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education requires that written communication be assessed in Doctor of Pharmacy admissions processes. Reliability is a standard for ethical testing, and inter-rater reliability with scoring essays necessitates continued quality assurance. Both inter-rater consistency and inter-rater agreement are part of inter-rater reliability and so both need scrutiny. Within our admission process, we analyzed inter-rater reliability for faculty rater essay scores from 2008-2012 using intraclass correlation (ICC) for consistency and standard error of measurement (SEM) for agreement. Trends in these scores were examined to evaluate the impact of rubric implementation, revisions, and rater training integrated over the course of those five admission cycles. For regular admission (RA) candidates, an analytic rubric was implemented in 2009. Scoring without a rubric began with an ICC of 0.595 (2008) and improved to 0.860 (2012) after rubric implementation, revisions, and rater training. In a separate but similar process for contingent admission (CA) candidates, a holistic rubric was implemented in 2010. The ICC for CA essay scoring before rubric was 0.586 (2009), and it improved to 0.772 (2012). With both rubrics, interrater agreement (using SEM) improved with smaller scoring scales (i.e., 4-point 4 20-point 4 50-point). In our experience, rubric implementation and training appeared to improve inter-rater consistency, though inter-rater agreement was not improved with every rubric revision. Our holistic rubrics' 4-point scale was most precise for both inter-rater consistency and inter-rater agreement. Our rubrics with larger scoring scales appeared to foster false confidence in precision of scores-with larger variation in scores introducing more measurement error.

Background: Several methods have been proposed for setting an examination pass mark (PM), and the Angoff’s method or its modified version is the preferred one. Selection of raters is important and affects the PM. Aims and Objectives: This study aims to investigate the selection of raters in the Angoff’s method and the impact of academic degrees and experience on the PM decided on. Materials and Methods: Type A MCQs examination was used in this study as a model. Raters with different academic degrees and experience participated in the study. Raters estimations were statiscally analyzed. Results: The selection of raters was crucial. Agreement among raters could be achieved by those with relevant qualifications and expertise. There was an association between high estimation, academic degree, expertise and high PM. Conclusion: Selection of raters for the Angoff’s method should include those with different academic degrees, backgrounds and experience so that a satisfactory PM may be reached by means of a reasonable agreement. Key words: Academic degree, Angoff’s method, experience, raters’ selection, setting pass mark

Introduction, ICCRS International Open Conference Fiuggi, June 8, 2006.

La Chimica nella Scuola, 2024

Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2018

Continuidad y cambio: pintura y pintores durante el reinado de los Borbones en Iberoamérica, 2016

Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 2018

Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2012

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2022

Vox Patrum, 2015

Heliyon, 2020

Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 2021

Physics Letters B, 1996

European journal of public health, 2023

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024