AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPERT‐SYSTEM AND HUMAN RATERS' SCORES ON COMPLEX CONSTRUCTED‐RESPONSE QUANTITATIVE ITEMS

Abstract

This study evaluated agreement between expert‐system and human scores on 12 constructed‐response algebra word problems taken by Graduate Record Examination General Test examinees. Problems were drawn from three content classes (rate × time, work, and interest) and presented in four constructed‐response formats (open ended, goal specification, equation setup, and faulty solution). Agreement was evaluated for each item separately by comparing the system's scores to the mean scores taken across five content experts. The expert system produced scores for all responses and duplicated the judgments of raters with reasonable accuracy; the median of 12 correlations between the system and human scores was .88, and the largest average discrepancy was 1.2 on a 16‐point scale. No obvious differences in scoring agreement between constructed‐response formats or content classes emerged. Ideas are discussed for using expert scoring systems in large‐scale assessment programs and in interactive diagnostic assessment.