[Rasch] Facets feature or bug?

Iasonas Lamprianou liasonas at cytanet.com.cy
Mon Apr 2 18:58:20 EST 2012

thanx. googled it and found the tablea you mention. 

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Bond, Trevor" <trevor.bond at jcu.edu.au>
To: "rasch at acer.edu.au" <rasch at acer.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [Rasch] Facets feature or bug?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 01:54:35 -0700
> Sure, JasonAll your data seem to be linked via the studentsAs they are in the example givenCheck Mike's paperTOn 2/04/12 6:11 PM, "Iasonas Lamprianou" <liasonas at cytanet.com.cy> wrote:> > thank you Trevor> > i am afraid that i only have your edition one of the book, can i find this> information there as well? also i apologise for not understanding fully your> position so i need a clarification. your position is that it is not a bug and> facets can recover some useful info to compare the raters although no double> marking of any magnitude exists. am i missing something?> > ----- Original Message Follows -----> From: "Bond, Trevor" <trevor.bond at jcu.edu.au>> To: "rasch at acer.edu.au" <rasch at acer.edu.au>> Subject: Re: [Rasch] Facets feature or bug?> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:30:29 -0700>> Jason, I think this covers it:>> Linacre (1997)
> displayed three judging rosters for ratings from the Advanced>> Placement Program of the College Board. The complete judging plan of 1,152>> ratings illustrates the ideal plan for bo th conventional and Rasch analysis.>> This complete judging plan meets the connection requirement between all>> facets because every element (essays, examinees, and judges) can be compared>> directly and unambiguously with every other element.>> A much less judge-intensive plan of only 180 ratings also is displayed, in>> which less precise Rasch estimates can be obtained because the facet-linking>> overlap is maintained. The Rasch measures would be less precise than with>> complete data because 83% fewer observations are made. Linacre?s final table>> reveals the minimal judging plan, in which each of the 32 examinees? three>> essays is rated by only one
> judge. Each of the 12 judges rates eight essays,>> including two or three of each essay type, so that the examinee­judge essay>> overlap of these 96 ratings still enables all parameters to be estimated>> unambiguously in one frame of reference.>> Of course, the saving in judges? costs needs to be balanced against the cost>> of low measurement precision, but  this plan requires only 96 ratings, 8% of>> the observations required for the complete judging plan. Lunz et al. (1998)>> reported the successful implementation of such a minimal judging plan>> (Linacre, 1997).>> B&F 2 p149>> >> >> On 2/04/12 4:53 PM, "Iasonas Lamprianou" <liasonas at cytanet.com.cy> wrote:>> >>> >>> Dear all,>>> I send this question to all, and not only to Mike, because this question is>>> both related to the Facets software, but is a methodological question as>>>
> well.>>> >>> I am running a "typical" scenario where I have markers who mark the>>> responses>>> of students to a test. The markers do not see the whole test, but only>>> individual questions. We do NOT have double marking. So, lets say that we>>> have>>> 1000 students, each one responding to 10 questions. In effect, we have>>> 10.000>>> responses. Lets say that each one of the 10.000 responses is randomly sent>>> once to one marker. We have 20 markers in total.>>> >>> Observation 1: the 3-d matrix markersXitemsXstudents is VERY spa rse (we will>>> all agree on that) because we have NO double marking>>> Observation 2 which is a question as well: I think that the design is NOT>>> linked (no double marking), does everyone agree? However, Facets does not>>> complain about disconnected subsets, I do not know why. Should I not worry?>>> Does
> Facets assume that because of randomness, all markers are on the same>>> scale? Is Facets confused and incorrectly thinks that the design is NOT>>> disconnected?>>> >>> Question: If disconnected subsets is a problem in this case, how can I run>>> an>>> anlysis in order to identify marker effects using this dataset?>>> >>> Thank you for your help>>> >>> Jason>>> _______________________________________________>>> Rasch mailing list>>> Rasch at acer.edu.au>>> Unsubscribe: >>> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/trevor.bond%40jcu.edu.>>> au>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________>> Rasch mailing list>> Rasch at acer.edu.au>> Unsubscribe: >> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mai lman/options/rasch/liasonas%40cytanet.com.>> cy> _______________________________________________> Rasch mailing list>
> Rasch at acer.edu.au> Unsubscribe: > https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/trevor.bond%40jcu.edu.au_______________________________________________Rasch mailing listRasch at acer.edu.auUnsubscribe: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/liasonas%40cytanet.com.cy

More information about the Rasch mailing list