ERIC Number: ED216357
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1981
Reference Count: 0
A Study of the Reliabilities and the Cost-Efficiencies of Three Methods of Assessment for Writing Ability.
Bauer, Barbara Ann
To compare the relative reliable uses and cost effectiveness of the analytic, the holistic, and the primary trait scoring methods, an inquiry was conducted in which a group of raters scored a large number of secondary school students' essays according to each of the scoring methods. Raters were nine graduate students in English who were trained in the use of each of the three scoring methods. The raters were then assigned to one of three groups, each using one scoring method exclusively. Essays scored were drawn from those generated as part of the 1973-74 writing assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Data produced in the study were analyzed for the interrater and intrarater reliabilities; the comparative rater reliabilities; the effects and the interactions that the methods, the raters, and the essays had on essay scores, as well as on one another; and the cost effectiveness in terms of training and grading times for each of the three scoring methods. Results showed that the analytic scoring method was the most reliable and the holistic scoring method the most cost effective in assessing large numbers of student essays. (FL)
Publication Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Analytic Scoring; Interrater Reliability; Primary Trait Scoring
Note: Research prepared at the University of Illinois.