[Rasch] A practical one

Trevor Bond trevor.bond at jcu.edu.au
Mon Oct 10 14:28:26 EST 2005


Thanks John,

this requires us to reflect on the whole nature of educational (and 
other) testing. High jumpers don't find it easier to clear heights 
just because they have failed them (been exposed to them) in the 
past. If mere exposure to the test improves scores: What are we 
actually testing? and, What is the purpose of education?
best
T


At 2:12 PM +1000 10/10/05, John Barnard \(EPEC\) wrote:
>Thanks for your reply Trevor. Of course we would expect (at least hope
>for) improvement in students' performance over time. However, think of
>this as a test for say pilots to qualify (just for argument's sake). It
>is thus a type of selection test rather than a "scholastic achievement"
>test where one would expect some growth. (It is thus rather a qualifying
>test and I know one can reason that those who failed could have put in
>an extra effort this time.) The hypothesis is that the repeat group was
>unfairly advantaged (competing for the same places) because they have
>seen the items before. Through what I have done so far, this seems to be
>the case. But now I want to account for this, i.e. trying to be fair to
>those who have not seen the items before.
>
>If this was not the case (and there was no additional effort) one would
>expect the repeat group to have approx the same mean ability (if same
>item difficulty estimates are used) in the two sessions. But, the mean
>ability of the repeat group increased significantly.
>
>Hope this clarifies the issue a little.
>
>Kindly
>John
>
>John J Barnard
>Executive Director: EPEC Pty Ltd
>www.users.bigpond.com/JohnBarnard/
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>The contents of this e-mail which may include one or more attachments,
>is confidential and is intended for the use of the named recipient(s).
>If you have received this e-mail in error, you are not permitted to and
>must not disclose, distribute or retain it, and are requested to notify
>the sender by return e-mail and delete it thereafter.
>
>It is the responsibility of the recipient(s) to ensure that the e-mail
>is virus free. Although EPEC uses the latest antiviral software, we do
>not accept responsibility for any problems caused by viruses.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Trevor Bond [mailto:trevor.bond at jcu.edu.au]
>Sent: Monday, 10 October 2005 1:45 PM
>To: John Barnard (EPEC); Rasch list
>Subject: Re: [Rasch] A practical one
>
>
>Dear John
>
>Perhaps we (or, I, at least) need some more information to understand
>your problem. Kids who repeated an exam (after doing make up work or
>just remembering) score better on a test the second time round. They
>scored more correct responses at T2 than at T1. This seems to be
>exactly what I would expect . . .or hope for . . .as an educator.
>Clearly I have missed the nature of your 'problem'.
>collegially
>Trevor
>
>At 1:32 PM +1000 10/10/05, John Barnard (EPEC) wrote:
>>Dear all
>>
>>I would appreciate some opinions on the following scenario.
>>
>>The same paper was given on two occasions. Some 20% of students (let's
>>call them the repeaters) who sat the first round (and failed) also sat
>>the second round. In round 1, the repeaters' mean ability is (say) 0.5
>>logits less than the non-repeaters'. After anchoring the item
>>difficulties in the first round and using them in round 2 resulted in
>>the repeaters now doing significantly better (say 0.7 logits on
>>average). Also the repeaters now have approx the same mean ability as
>>the non-repeaters in round 2, say 0.8 logits.
>>
>>The question is this: If the repeaters' mean ability increased by 0.7
>>logits, how can one account for this (taking the same paper again) to
>>not unfairly advantage the repeat group in round 2? (I am aware of
>>learning and other factors, but let's ignore that for the moment.)
>>
>>Kindly
>>John
>>
>>John J Barnard
>>Executive Director: EPEC Pty Ltd www.users.bigpond.com/JohnBarnard/
>>
>>DISCLAIMER:
>>The contents of this e-mail which may include one or more attachments,
>>is confidential and is intended for the use of the named recipient(s).
>  >If you have received this e-mail in error, you are not permitted to and
>
>>must not disclose, distribute or retain it, and are requested to notify
>
>>the sender by return e-mail and delete it thereafter.
>>
>>It is the responsibility of the recipient(s) to ensure that the e-mail
>>is virus free. Although EPEC uses the latest antiviral software, we do
>>not accept responsibility for any problems caused by viruses.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rasch mailing list
>>Rasch at acer.edu.au http://listserv3.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch
>
>
>--
>Trevor G BOND Ph D
>Professor and Head of Dept
>Educational Psychology, Counselling & Learning Needs
>D2-2F-01A EPCL Dept.
>Hong Kong Institute of Education
>10 Lo Ping Rd, Tai Po
>New Territories HONG KONG
>
>Voice: (852) 2948 8473
>Fax:  (852) 2948 7983
>Mob:


-- 
Trevor G BOND Ph D
Professor and Head of Dept
Educational Psychology, Counselling & Learning Needs
D2-2F-01A EPCL Dept.
Hong Kong Institute of Education
10 Lo Ping Rd, Tai Po
New Territories HONG KONG

Voice: (852) 2948 8473
Fax:  (852) 2948 7983
Mob:




More information about the Rasch mailing list