首页> 外文期刊>Educational and Psychological Measurement >Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments - A meta-analysis of testing mode effects
【24h】

Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments - A meta-analysis of testing mode effects

机译:K-12阅读评估中基于计算机的测试与纸笔测试的可比性-测试模式效果的元分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In recent years, computer-based testing (CBT) has grown in popularity, is increasingly being implemented across the United States, and will likely become the primary mode for delivering tests in the future. Although CBT offers many advantages over traditional paper-and-pencil testing, assessment experts, researchers, practitioners, and users have expressed concern about the comparability of scores between the two test administration modes. To help provide an answer to this issue, a meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the administration mode effects of CBTs and paper-and-pencil tests on K-12 student reading assessments. Findings indicate that the administration mode had no statistically significant effect on K-12 student reading achievement scores. Four moderator variables-study design, sample size, computer delivery algorithm, and computer practice-made statistically significant contributions to predicting effect size. Three moderator variables-grade level, type of test, and computer delivery method-did not affect the differences in reading scores between test modes.
机译:近年来,基于计算机的测试(CBT)越来越流行,在美国各地越来越多地实施,并且将来可能会成为提供测试的主要模式。尽管CBT相对于传统的纸笔考试具有许多优势,但是评估专家,研究人员,从业人员和用户对两种考试管理模式之间的分数可比性表示担忧。为了帮助解决该问题,进行了荟萃分析,综合了CBT的管理模式效果以及纸笔测试对K-12学生阅读评估的影响。结果表明,管理方式对K-12学生的阅读成绩没有统计学意义的影响。四个主持人变量-研究设计,样本量,计算机传递算法和计算机实践-对预测效应量具有统计学上的显着贡献。三个主持人变量-等级级别,测试类型和计算机交付方法-不会影响测试模式之间阅读分数的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号