FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W13854311> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W13854311 startingPage "2" @default.
• W13854311 abstract "Recent research suggests that the validity of holistically-scored writing may in turn affect both predictive and convergent validities of holistic scores for writing competence as such tests predict external unrelated scores (GPA) and are convergent with other measures of writing competence. To reaffirm convergent validity between objective tests and holistically-scored essays, and to establish predictive validity of both formats for gradepoint average (GPA), 392 test profiles were gathered from 1800 freshmen and sophomore student records. Test scores reflected ETS's Test of Standard Written English, The American College Test English battery, and the CLAST English Language Skills and Essay portions. Against much criticism, this study offers evidence that holistic scoring procedures not only produce construct validity but also correlate significantly (convergent validity) with other measures of writing competence and unrelated measures such as grade point average (predictive validity). Nearly five decades ago, Educational Testing Service (ETS) began investigating correlations between objective tests and prompted essays as measures of writing competence. Thereafter during the 1960's, ETS launched large-scale essay-scoring as a valid component of the College Level Educational Test (English) (CLEP), the Advanced Placement English Essay (AP), and the English Composition Test (ECT) option of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Since that time, holistically-scored essays have become staple components of writing-competency measures with both corporate testers and many states. Despite its apparent popularity, however, holistic scoring has generated some controversy about its validity among educational researchers in general and composition researchers in particular. Disagreement about holistic scoring's construct validity has evolved due to the complexity of the scoring task which each reader implicitly performs during an essay reading session. Charney (1984) questions the construct validity of holistic scoring because of the of topics and types of discourse, the arbitrariness of the criteria, and the failure of the raters to adhere to the criteria (cited in Lauer & Asherp, 1984, p 144). Added to this criticism has been the higher cost of holistic-scoring, versus machine-scoring of objective measures, during these cost-conscious times of educational cutbacks. Hoetker and Brossel (1988) have reported that Florida's College Level Academic Skills Test-Essay (CLAST) controls for topic variability and discourse type by permitting only two prompt choices--one requiring a detached, objective viewpoint, the other a personal narrative viewpoint. Moreover, future essay prompts are extensively field tested and evaluated by veteran readers who select for future use only those essay prompts that receive higher holistic scores and qualitative consensus from the readers. To avoid arbitrariness, ETS constantly revisits and revises its criteria, by gleaning new rubric elements from surveys of a national sample of veteran readers as well as from chief readers and scoring-table leaders at every reading site. Finally, inter-rater reliability is constantly monitored by ETS and states like Florida by double reading-scoring each paper, random third reading-scorings, and refereed reading-scorings of any discrepant score (two or more numerical scores apart). The purpose here was to determine if there was statistically significant results between and among readers at all sites and at all sessions. On the national level, ETS has spent twenty years and huge sums of money to establish convergent validity between their objective tests of writing competence and holistically scored essays. Over the years, both the refinement of technique and the correlation coefficients have improved dramatically between these two most common formats. According to Lauer and Asher (1984): In 1977 ... ETS correlated the essay test with the multiple-choice components of the (ECT) and found a correlation of . …" @default.
• W13854311 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W13854311 creator A5030195081 @default.
• W13854311 creator A5085005564 @default.
• W13854311 creator A5089266486 @default.
• W13854311 date "1999-03-01" @default.
• W13854311 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W13854311 title "Reaffirming Construct, Convergent and Predictive Validity between Objective Tests and Holistically Scored Essays" @default.
• W13854311 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W13854311 type Work @default.
• W13854311 sameAs 13854311 @default.
• W13854311 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W13854311 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W13854311 hasAuthorship W13854311A5030195081 @default.
• W13854311 hasAuthorship W13854311A5085005564 @default.
• W13854311 hasAuthorship W13854311A5089266486 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C100521375 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C116211729 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C120107772 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C121244757 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C182050348 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C20685875 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C2780586970 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C3018868096 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C49453240 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W13854311 hasConcept C90963130 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C100521375 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C116211729 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C120107772 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C121244757 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C138496976 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C151730666 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C15744967 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C171606756 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C182050348 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C20685875 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C2777267654 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C2780586970 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C3018868096 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C49453240 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C77805123 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C86803240 @default.
• W13854311 hasConceptScore W13854311C90963130 @default.
• W13854311 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W13854311 hasLocation W138543111 @default.
• W13854311 hasOpenAccess W13854311 @default.
• W13854311 hasPrimaryLocation W138543111 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W1516508131 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W1975118425 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2012748169 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2035749544 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2046517742 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2095002948 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2124798984 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2127097925 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2128894608 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2316790024 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2594882268 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2752754435 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2780134896 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2783525559 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W3000307454 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W3086939422 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W3173662221 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W3203430667 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2188214758 @default.
• W13854311 hasRelatedWork W2731719148 @default.
• W13854311 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W13854311 isParatext "false" @default.
• W13854311 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W13854311 magId "13854311" @default.
• W13854311 workType "article" @default.