Assessing Writing Oct 2014

On the vulnerability of automated scoring to construct-irrelevant response strategies (CIRS): An illustration

Isaac I. Bejar ; Michael Flor ; Yoko Futagi ; Chaintanya Ramineni
Journal
Assessing Writing
Published
2014-10-01
DOI
10.1016/j.asw.2014.06.001
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Wilson et al. (2017)
    Automated formative writing assessment using a levels of language framework
    Assessing Writing

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 9 works outside this index ↓
  1. Bennett (1998)
    Validity and automated scoring: It's not only the scoring
    Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice  ↗
  2. Bejar (2011)
    A validity-based approach to quality control and assurance of automated scoring
    Assessment in Education  ↗
  3. Breland (1996)
    Word frequency and word difficulty: A comparison of counts in four corpora
    Psychological Science  ↗
  4. Embretson (1983)
    Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span
    Psychological Bulletin  ↗
  5. Huot (1996)
    Toward a new theory of writing assessment
    College Composition and Communication  ↗
  6. Powers (2002)
    Comparing the validity of automated and human scoring of essays
    Journal of Educational Computing Research  ↗
  7. Powers (2002)
    Stumping e-rater: Challenging the validity of automated essay scoring
    Computers in Human Behavior  ↗
  8. Powers (1994)
    Direct assessment, direct validation? An example from the assessment of writing
    Educational Assessment  ↗
  9. Yu (2010)
    Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances
    Applied Linguistics  ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 19 View in citation network →