The impact of students' test-taking effort on growth estimates in low-stakes educational assessments

被引:9
|
作者
Yildirim-Erbasli, Seyma Nur [1 ]
Bulut, Okan [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Dept Educ Psychol, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Ctr Res Appl Measurement & Evaluat, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
Growth; reading; test-taking effort; rapid guessing; slow responding; response time effort; RAPID-GUESSING BEHAVIOR; CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT; RESPONSE-TIME; MOTIVATION; DISENGAGEMENT; VALIDATION; SCHEDULE;
D O I
10.1080/13803611.2021.1977152
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
This study investigated the impact of students' test-taking effort on their growth estimates in reading. The sample consisted of 7,602 students (Grades 1 to 4) in the United States who participated in the fall and spring administrations of a computer-based reading assessment. First, a new response dataset was created by flagging both rapid-guessing and slow-responding behaviours and recoding these non-effortful responses as missing. Second, students' academic growth (i.e., daily increase in ability levels) from fall to spring was calculated based on their original responses and responses in the new dataset excluding non-effortful responses. The results indicated that students' growth estimates changed significantly after recoding non-effortful responses as missing. Also, the difference in the growth estimates varied depending on the grade level. Overall, students' test-taking effort appeared to be influential in the estimation of students' reading growth. Implications for practice were discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:368 / 386
页数:19
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [21] Institutional strategies related to test-taking behavior in low stakes assessment
    Schuettpelz-Brauns, Katrin
    Hecht, Martin
    Hardt, Katinka
    Karay, Yassin
    Zupanic, Michaela
    Kaemmer, Juliane E.
    ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2020, 25 (02) : 321 - 335
  • [22] Institutional strategies related to test-taking behavior in low stakes assessment
    Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns
    Martin Hecht
    Katinka Hardt
    Yassin Karay
    Michaela Zupanic
    Juliane E. Kämmer
    Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2020, 25 : 321 - 335
  • [23] The Continuity of Students' Disengaged Responding in Low-stakes Assessments: Evidence from Response Times
    Bulut, Hatice Cigdem
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN EDUCATION, 2021, 8 (03): : 527 - 541
  • [24] An investigation of the differential effort received by items on a low-stakes computer-based test
    Wise, SL
    APPLIED MEASUREMENT IN EDUCATION, 2006, 19 (02) : 95 - 114
  • [25] New Zealand students' test-taking motivation: an experimental study examining the effects of stakes
    Zhao, Anran
    Brown, Gavin T. L.
    Meissel, Kane
    ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION-PRINCIPLES POLICY & PRACTICE, 2022, 29 (04) : 397 - 421
  • [26] Investigating the impact of multiple priming questions on examinee effort during low-stakes testing
    McFadden, Mara E.
    Finney, Sara J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TESTING, 2025, 25 (01) : 109 - 133
  • [27] Raising the stakes: How students' motivation for mathematics associates with high- and low-stakes test achievement
    Simzar, Rahila M.
    Martinez, Marcela
    Rutherford, Teomara
    Domina, Thurston
    Conley, AnneMarie M.
    LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2015, 39 : 49 - 63
  • [28] LOW-STAKES ASSESSMENTS: AN EFFECTIVE TOOL TO IMPROVE MARKS IN HIGHER-STAKES SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS? EVIDENCE FROM COMMERCE STUDENTS AT A SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITY
    Ontong, J. M.
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 2021, 35 (05) : 234 - 255
  • [29] The Effect of Perceived Test Importance and Examinee Emotions on Expended Effort during A Low-Stakes Test: A Longitudinal Panel Model
    Finney, Sara J.
    Satkus, Paulius
    Perkins, Beth A.
    EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT, 2020, 25 (02) : 159 - 177
  • [30] An international comparison of students' ability to endure fatigue and maintain motivation during a low-stakes test
    Borgonovi, Francesca
    Biecek, Przemyslaw
    LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2016, 49 : 128 - 137