Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henning, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Accounting for nonsystematic error in performance ratings

Grant Henning

The Pennsylvania State University

This analysis of simulated performance ratings on a six-point scale by two independent raters is an attempt to account for nonsystematic error in performance ratings under restrictive assumptions of classical measurement theory. Results suggest that rater agreement or covariance is not always a dependable estimate of score reliability, and that the practice of seeking additional raters for the adjudication of discrepant ratings is not equally appropriate in every evaluation decision context or at every possible rating score step. And, although nonsystematic rating error is most common at the midpoints of the rating scale, most of this midpoint error disappears when rater scores are averaged, so that the need for adjudication is most critical at the rating scale extremes, whether or not raters are in agreement.

Language Testing, Vol. 13, No. 1, 53-61 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/026553229601300104
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
Y.-W. Lee
Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks
Language Testing, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 131 - 166.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
K. Kondo-Brown
A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance
Language Testing, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 3 - 31.
[Abstract] [PDF]