Validation of Automated Scores of TOEFL iBT® Tasks against Nontest Indicators of Writing Ability. TOEFL iBT® Research Report. TOEFL iBT-15. ETS Research Report RR-11-24

Autor/in	Weigle, Sara Cushing
Titel	Validation of Automated Scores of TOEFL iBT® Tasks against Nontest Indicators of Writing Ability. TOEFL iBT® Research Report. TOEFL iBT-15. ETS Research Report RR-11-24
Quelle	In: ETS Research Report Series, (2011), (73 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2330-8516
Schlagwörter	Scoring; English (Second Language); Second Language Instruction; Automation; Writing Evaluation; Writing Skills; Prompting; Essays; Correlation; Test Scoring Machines; Scoring Rubrics; Statistical Analysis; College Students; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Foreign Students; Language Tests; Second Language Learning; California (Los Angeles); Georgia; Indiana; Iowa; Michigan; Minnesota; New York; Washington; Test of English as a Foreign Language + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Bewertung; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Fremdsprachenunterricht; Writing skill; Schreibfertigkeit; Benutzerführung; Essay; Aufsatzunterricht; Korrelation; Scoring formulas; Auswertungsbogen; Statistische Analyse; Collegestudent; Language test; Sprachtest; Zweitsprachenerwerb
Abstract	Automated scoring has the potential to dramatically reduce the time and costs associated with the assessment of complex skills such as writing, but its use must be validated against a variety of criteria for it to be accepted by test users and stakeholders. This study addresses two validity-related issues regarding the use of e-rater® with the independent writing task on the TOEFL iBT® (Internet-based test). First, relationships between automated scores of iBT tasks and nontest indicators of writing ability were examined. This was followed by exploration of prompt-related differences in automated scores of essays written by the same examinees. Correlations between both human and e-rater scores and nontest indicators were moderate but consistent, with few differences between e-rater and human rater scores. E-rater was more consistent across prompts than individual human raters, although there were differences in scores across prompts for the individual features used to generate total e-rater scores. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Educational Testing Service. Rosedale Road, MS19-R Princeton, NJ 08541. Tel: 609-921-9000; Fax: 609-734-5410; e-mail: RDweb@ets.org; Web site: https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/ets
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01