Assessing Writing Jan 2007

Re-training writing raters online: How does it compare with face-to-face training?

Ute Knoch University of Auckland ; John Read University of Auckland ; Janet von Randow University of Auckland
Journal
Assessing Writing
Published
2007-01-01
DOI
10.1016/j.asw.2007.04.001
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (9)

  1. Huang et al. (2022)
    Individualized feedback to raters in language assessment: Impacts on rater effects
    Assessing Writing
  2. Uludag et al. (2022)
    Validating a rubric for assessing integrated writing in an EAP context
    Assessing Writing
  3. Johnson et al. (2017)
    College student perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author charact…
    Assessing Writing
  4. Wolfe et al. (2016)
    Features of difficult-to-score essays
    Assessing Writing
  5. Winke et al. (2015)
    ESL essay raters’ cognitive processes in applying the Jacobs et al. rubric: An …
    Assessing Writing
Show all 9 →
  1. Esfandiari et al. (2013)
    Severity differences among self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessor…
    Assessing Writing
  2. Rezaei et al. (2010)
    Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing
    Assessing Writing
  3. Whithaus et al. (2008)
    Keyboarding compared with handwriting on a high-stakes writing assessment: Stud…
    Assessing Writing
  4. Knoch (2007)
    ‘Little coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two ra…
    Assessing Writing

References (19)

  1. Congdon (2000)
    The stability of rater severity in large-scale assessment programs
    Journal of Educational Measurement  ↗
  2. Elder (2007)
    Evaluating rater responses to an online rater training program
    Language Testing  ↗
  3. Fisher (1992)
    Reliability statistics
    Rasch Measurement: Transactions of the Rasch Measurement SIG
  4. Hamilton (2001)
    Teachers’ perceptions of on-line rater training and monitoring
    System  ↗
  5. Jamieson (2005)
    Trend in computer-based second language assessment
    Annual Review of Applied Linguistics  ↗
Show all 19 →
  1. Kenyon (1993)
    Evaluating the efficacy of rater self-training
  2. Landy (1983)
    The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and application
  3. Linacre (2006)
    Facets Rasch measurement computer program
  4. Lumley (1995)
    Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training
    Language Testing  ↗
  5. McIntyre, P. N. (1993). The importance and effectiveness of moderation training on the reliability of teacher…
  6. McNamara (1996)
    Measuring second language performance
  7. Myford (1995)
    Monitoring and improving a portfolio assessment system
  8. Myford (2000)
    Monitoring sources of variability within the Test of Spoken English assessment system
  9. Myford (2003)
    Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part I
    Journal of Applied Measurement
  10. Myford (2004)
    Detecting and measuring rater effects using many-facet Rasch measurement: Part II
    Journal of Applied Measurement
  11. Weigle, S. C. (1994a). Effects of training on raters of English as a second language compositions: Quantitati…
     ↗
  12. Weigle (1994)
    Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions
    Language Testing  ↗
  13. Weigle (1998)
    Using FACETS to model rater training effects
    Language Testing  ↗
  14. Wolfe (1999)
    The manifestation of common rater effects in multi-faceted Rasch analyses
CrossRef global citation count: 74 View in citation network → Build reading path →