FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W38345411> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W38345411 startingPage "31" @default.
• W38345411 abstract "The VALUE reliability study was developed to gather data on usability and transferability of rubrics both within and across institutions. This study was also designed to address degree of reliability and consensus in scoring across faculty from different disciplinary backgrounds. Reliability data were gathered and analyzed for three of fifteen existing VALUE rubrics - critical thinking, integrative learning, and civic engagement.The effectiveness of assessment instruments is commonly evaluated by degree to which validity and reliability can be established. Instruments should, therefore, both accurately capture intended outcome (validity) and be able to do so consistently (reliability). Because validity is often harder to establish than reliability, it is preferable for assessments to contain multiple forms of validity. In important ways rubric development process itself provided VALUE rubrics with substantial degrees of two types of validity. First, because VALUE rubrics were created nationally by teams of faculty, those people closest to student learning and outcomes assessment on campuses, rubrics hold a high degree of face validity. The face validity of rubrics is apparent in scale of interest and circulation of rubrics to date, as evidenced by approximately eleven thousand people from over three thousand institutions and organizations, international and domestic, who have logged in on AAC&U VALUE web page (http://www.aacu.org/value/index.cfm) to access rubrics.Second, specific employment of faculty experts in particular outcome areas to populate development teams provides rubrics with additional content validity. Experts are commonly used to establish content validity to verify that the measure covers full range of concepts meaning (Chambliss and Schutt 2003, 69).The objectives for establishing national reliability estimates for VALUE rubrics were two-fold. One, because rubrics were created nationally and interdisciplinarily we sought to emulate this procedure in order to establish a cross- disciplinary reliability score for each rubric. Two, we also sought to establish reliability scores within disciplines to examine range of similarities and differences across faculty from different disciplinary backgrounds.METHODSForty- four faculty members were recruited to participate in study. Faculty members were evenly distributed across four broad disciplinary areas: humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and professional and applied sciences. Each faculty member scored three samples of student work for each of three rubrics. The initial of scoring functioned as a round through which scorers could familiarize themselves with rubric and scores would be compared to previously determined calibration scores set by rubric experts. (Rubric experts employed to establish baseline scores for rubrics were national representatives already well- acquainted with rubric scoring and specifically with VALUE rubrics.) If faculty member s scores were closely aligned with pre-determined calibration scores, they were approved to go on to score two more work samples. If there was a divergence in scoring on particular criteria, faculty member reviewed discrepancy with project manager and participated in a final of calibration scoring before moving on to additional work samples. The scoring process was conducted virtually. Scorers were given secure links to access samples of student work, rubrics, and scoring sheet. Scores were entered online and uploaded to a secure spreadsheet for analysis.The most common procedure for establishing reliability for rubrics is through inter-coder or inter-rater methods, by which two coders evaluate same work sample, score it according to an approved rubric, and calculate a reliability score. To accommodate scoring from multiple raters, a multi-rater kappa reliability statistic was used. …" @default.
• W38345411 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W38345411 creator A5072677977 @default.
• W38345411 date "2011-10-01" @default.
• W38345411 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W38345411 title "How Reliable Are the VALUE Rubrics" @default.
• W38345411 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W38345411 type Work @default.
• W38345411 sameAs 38345411 @default.
• W38345411 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W38345411 countsByYear W383454112013 @default.
• W38345411 countsByYear W383454112015 @default.
• W38345411 countsByYear W383454112017 @default.
• W38345411 countsByYear W383454112018 @default.
• W38345411 countsByYear W383454112020 @default.
• W38345411 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W38345411 hasAuthorship W38345411A5072677977 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C111640148 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C198999979 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C2778755073 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C3018868096 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C33191230 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C49453240 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C58640448 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C58916136 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W38345411 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C111640148 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C121332964 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C145420912 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C15744967 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C163258240 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C171606756 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C198999979 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C205649164 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C2778755073 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C3018868096 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C33191230 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C41008148 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C43214815 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C49453240 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C58640448 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C58916136 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C62520636 @default.
• W38345411 hasConceptScore W38345411C70410870 @default.
• W38345411 hasLocation W383454111 @default.
• W38345411 hasOpenAccess W38345411 @default.
• W38345411 hasPrimaryLocation W383454111 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W101173778 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W1516508131 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W1920251231 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W1976222866 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W1980091178 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W1984970102 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2012748169 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2027763555 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2230573730 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2417447947 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2594882268 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2604149401 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2752754435 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2756164187 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2966839297 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W3022892179 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W3083370697 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W3086939422 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W3130565391 @default.
• W38345411 hasRelatedWork W2905367326 @default.
• W38345411 isParatext "false" @default.
• W38345411 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W38345411 magId "38345411" @default.
• W38345411 workType "article" @default.