.png){kind=icon}
返回
When proportion consensus scoring works
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.017.png)
.png){kind=icon}
原文求助.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
Most objectively scored tests use items with easily identifiable correct answers. When such veridical scoring keys cannot be constructed, researchers sometimes use proportion consensus scoring (PCS) to identify the best answers. To determine if PCS identifies the best answers, we scored a test using both PCS and veridical scoring. Among 353 undergraduates, regular PCS, two-stage PCS, and expert PCS all had high correlations for easy items, but no PCS methods had high correlations for difficult items. Thus, PCS cannot reliability identify the best answers to individual items. However. PCS worked well for total scores. For easy items, total scores had correlations above .99 for all PCS methods. For difficult items, expert and two-stage PCS had correlations of .92 and .82 for the 60-item test. Thus, expert and two-stage PCS can be justified (even for difficult items) if the scoring key is based upon people who truly possess some degree of expertise and if scores are summed over many items. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keyword:
Proportion consensus scoring
Scoring key
Item difficulty
Emotional intelligence
Leadership
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
2.6
论文数:
1.5W
被引数:
3.6W
机构
引用论文
Identifying and assessing tacit knowledge: understanding the practical intelligence of military leaders.png)
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLYIF9.7
PREAI
分享收藏
Measuring cognitive aptitude using unobtrusive knowledge tests: A new survey technologyINTELLIGENCE
INTELLIGENCEIF2.8
PREAI
分享收藏分享收藏
查看更多内容