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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
