Download presentation

1
**Consistency in testing**

Reliability Consistency in testing

2
**Types of variance Meaningful variance Error variance**

Variance between test takers which reflects differences in the ability or skill being measured Error variance Variance between test takers which is caused by factors other than differences in the ability or skill being measured Test developers as ‘variance chasers’

3
**Sources of error variance**

Measurement error Environment Administration procedures Scoring procedures Examinee differences Test and items Remember, OS = TS + E

4
**Estimating reliability for NRTs**

Are the test scores reliable over time? Would a student get the same score if tested tomorrow? Are the test scores reliable over different forms of the same test? Would the student get the same score if given a different form of the test? Is the test internally consistent?

5
**Reliability coefficient (rxx)**

Range: 0.0 (totally unreliable test) to 1.0 (perfectly reliable test) Reliability coefficients are estimates of the systematic variance in the test scores lower reliability coefficient = greater measurement error in the test score

6
**Test-retest reliability**

Same students take test twice Calculate reliability (Pearson’s r) Interpret r as reliability (conservative) Problems Logistically difficult Learning might take place between tests

7
**Equivalent forms reliability**

Same students take parallel forms of test Calculate correlation Problems Creating parallel forms can be tricky Logistical difficulty

8
**University of Michigan English Placement Test**

(University of Michigan English Placement Test Examiner’s Manual)

9
**Internal consistency reliability**

Calculating the reliability from a single administration of a test Commonly reported Split-half Cronbach alpha K-R20 K-R21 Calculated automatically by many statistical software packages

10
**Split-half reliability**

The test is split in half (e.g., odd / even) creating “equivalent forms” The two “forms” are correlated with each other The correlation coefficient is adjusted to reflect the entire test length Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula

11
**Calculating split half reliability**

ID Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Odd Even 1 2 3 4 5 6 Odd Mean 1.83 2 1 SD 0.75 1 3 3 2 Even 2 Mean 1.33 2 2 SD 1.21 1

12
**Calculating split half reliability (2)**

Odd Mean Diff Even Prod. 2 1.83 1 1.33 3 0.17 -0.33 -0.056 1.67 -1.386 -0.83 1.17 0.67 0.784 -1.33 -0.226 0.17 0.114 0.17 0.67 -0.83 -1.33 1.104 0.334

13
**Calculating split half**

0.334 = 0.06 (6)(.75)(1.21) Adjust for test length using Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula 2 x 0.06 (2 – 1) rxx =0.11

14
**Cronbach alpha = 0.12 2 (1 - (0.75)2 + (1.21)2 (1.47)2 )**

Similar to split half but easier to calculate 2 (1 - (0.75)2 + (1.21)2 (1.47)2 ) = 0.12

15
**K-R20 “Rolls-Royce” of internal reliability estimates**

Simulates calculating split-half reliability for every possible combination of items

16
**K-R20 formula Note that this is variance, not standard deviation**

Sum of Item Variance = the sum of IF(1-IF)

17
K-R21 Slightly less accurate than KR-20, but can be calculated with just descriptive statistics Tends to underestimate reliability

18
KR-21 formula Note that this is variance (standard deviation squared)

19
**Test summary report (TAP)**

Number of Items Excluded = 0 Number of Items Analyzed = 40 Mean Item Difficulty = 0.597 Mean Item Discrimination = 0.491 Mean Point Biserial = 0.417 Mean Adj. Point Biserial = 0.369 KR20 (Alpha) = 0.882 KR = 0.870 SEM (from KR20) = 2.733 # Potential Problem Items = 9 High Grp Min Score (n=15) = Low Grp Max Score (n=14) = Split-Half (1st/ 2nd) Reliability = (with Spearman-Brown = 0.470) Split-Half (Odd/Even) Reliability = (with Spearman-Brown = 0.927)

20
**Standard Error of Measurement**

If we give a student the same test repeatedly (test-retest), we would expect to see some variation in the scores 50 49 52 50 51 49 48 50 With enough repetition, these scores would form a normal distribution We would expect the student to score near the center of the distribution the most often

21
**Standard Error of Measurement**

The greater the reliability of the test, the smaller the SEM We expect the student to score within one SEM approximately 68% of the time If a student has a score of 50 and the SEM is 3, we expect the student to score between 47 ~ 53 approximately 68% of the time on a retest

22
**Interpreting the SEM For a score of 29: (K-R21)**

26 ~ 32 is within 1 SEM 23 ~ 35 are within 2 SEM 20 ~ 38 are within 3 SEM

23
Calculating the SEM What is the SEM for a test with a reliability of r=.889 and a standard deviation of 8.124? SEM = 2.7 What if the same test had a reliability of r = .95? SEM = 1.8

24
**Reliability for performance assessment**

Traditional fixed response assessment Performance assessment (i.e. writing, speaking) Test-taker Test-taker Task Instrument (test) Performance Scale Score Score Rater / judge

25
**Interrater/Intrarater reliability**

Calculate correlation between all combinations of raters Adjust using Spearman-Brown to account for total number of raters giving score

Similar presentations

OK

1Reliability Introduction to Communication Research School of Communication Studies James Madison University Dr. Michael Smilowitz.

1Reliability Introduction to Communication Research School of Communication Studies James Madison University Dr. Michael Smilowitz.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on arunachal pradesh culture of india Ppt on obesity prevention in children Seminar ppt on lasers in general surgery Ppt on regular expression in java Ppt on environmental pollution in india Ppt on our environment Ppt on point contact diode application Ppt on ms excel 2007 Make a ppt on how to control noise pollution Ppt on acute coronary syndrome protocol