当前位置: X-MOL 学术Assessment for Effective Intervention › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Meta-Analysis of Validity and Review of Alternate Form Reliability and Slope for Curriculum-Based Measurement in Science and Social Studies
Assessment for Effective Intervention Pub Date : 2020-12-14 , DOI: 10.1177/1534508420978457
Sarah J. Conoyer 1 , William J. Therrien 2 , Kristen K. White 1
Affiliation  

Meta-analysis was used to examine curriculum-based measurement in the content areas of social studies and science. Nineteen studies between the years of 1998 and 2020 were reviewed to determine overall mean correlation for criterion validity and examine alternate-form reliability and slope coefficients. An overall mean correlation of .59 was found for criterion validity; however, there was significant heterogeneity across studies suggesting curriculum-based measure (CBM) format or content area may affect findings. Low to high alternative form reliability correlation coefficients were reported across CBM formats between .21 and .89. Studies investigating slopes included mostly vocabulary-matching formats and reported a range from .12 to .65 correct items per week with a mean of .34. Our findings suggest that additional research in the development of these measures in validity, reliability, and slope is warranted.



中文翻译:

荟萃分析的有效性和替代形式的可靠性和斜率的科学和社会学课程设置基于课程的测量

荟萃分析用于检查社会研究和科学内容领域中基于课程的测量。回顾了1998年至2020年之间的19项研究,以确定标准均值的总体均值相关性,并检验了替代形式的可靠性和斜率系数。总体平均相关性为0.59,证明标准有效性。但是,各研究之间存在很大的异质性,表明基于课程的量度(CBM)格式或内容区域可能会影响调查结果。据报道,在CBM格式中,从低到高的替代形式可靠性相关系数在0.21和0.89之间。调查坡度的研究主要包括词汇匹配格式,并且报告的正确项目的范围为每周0.12至0.65,平均值为0.34。

更新日期:2020-12-14
down
wechat
bug