Research Article

Comparing Parametersof Many Facetrasch Measurement Model And Hierarchial Rater Model

Volume: 6 Number: 2 April 25, 2017
EN TR

Comparing Parametersof Many Facetrasch Measurement Model And Hierarchial Rater Model

Abstract

This study aims at estimating the parameters with many facet Rasch measurement model (MFRMM) and hierarchical rater model (HRM) and evaluating together the rater severty/leniency and parameters obtained from both models if responses given by the same examinees for open-ended items are scored by multiple raters. In the scope of collecting study data, the scores assigned by five secondary school mathematics teachers for responses to eight open-ended items by 380 students, aged 15, from 10 schools in Çankaya District of Ankara province were used during the 2nd semester of the 2012-2013 academic year. The study revealed that rater parameters of MFRMM and HRM were similar in general. According to the deviation in formation criteria for both models; it was concluded that HRM provides better fit the data than MFRMM and the structure of assigned multiple scores regarding one single response to one single item is reflected beter by the HRM.

Keywords

Rasch Measurement Model,Hierarchical Rater Model,Rater Parameters

References

  1. Airasian, P.W. (2001). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  2. Akın, Ö. & Baştürk, R. (2012). Keman Eğitiminde Temel Becerilerin Rasch Ölçme Modeli İle Değerlendirilmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31 (31), 175-187.
  3. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561-573.
  4. Atılgan, H. (2005b). Müzik öğretmenliği özel yetenek seçme sınavının çok-yüzeyli rasch modeli ile analizi (İnönü üniversitesi örneği). Eurasian Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 62 – 73.
  5. Brennan, R.L. (1992). Generalizability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(4), 27-34.
  6. Brennan, R.L. (1997). A Perspective on the history of generabability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(4), 14-20.
  7. Brennan, R.L. (2010). Generalizability theory and classical test theory. Applied Measurement in Education. 24(1), 1-21.
  8. Cardinet, J., Tourneur, Y. & Allal, L. (1981). Extension of generalizability theory and its applications in educational measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18(4), 183-204.
  9. Casabianca, J.M. & Junker, B. (2013). Hierarchical rater models for longitudinal assessments. Annual Meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education’da sunulan bildiri. San Francisco, California.
  10. Casabianca, J.M. & Junker, B. (2014). The hierarchical rater model for evaluating changes in traits over time. 121st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Division 5: Evaluation, Measurement and Statistics’te sunulan bildiri. Washington D.C.
APA
Uluman, M., & Tavşancıl, E. (2017). Çok Değişkenlik Kaynaklı Rasch Ölçme Modeli ve Hiyerarşik Puanlayıcı Modeli İle Kestirilen Puanlayıcı Parametrelerinin Karşılaştırılmas. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 777-798. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.296489