Application of Generalizability Theory to Concept Map Assessment Research. Yin, Y. & Shavelson, R. J. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(3):273–291, 2008. doi abstract bibtex In the first part of this article, the use of Generalizability (G)\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ntheory in examining the dependability of concept map assessment scores\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nand designing a concept map assessment for a particular practical\${\textbackslash}backslash\$napplication is discussed. In the second part, the application of\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nG theory is demonstrated by comparing the technical qualities of\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ntwo frequently used mapping techniques: construct-a-map with created\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nlinking phrases (C) and construct-a-map with selected linking phrases\${\textbackslash}backslash\$n(S). Some mea- surement facets that influence concept-map scores\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nare explored and how to opti- mize different concept mapping techniques\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nby varying the conditions for different facets is shown. It is found\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nthat C and S are not technically equivalent. The G coefficients for\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nS are larger than those for C under the same condition. Further-\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nmore, a decision(D) study shows that fewer items (propositions) would\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nbe needed for S than C to reach desired level of G coefficients if\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nonly one occasion could be afforded. On the other hand, C seems to\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nreveal students' understanding about dif- ferent concepts than S\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nbetter. For practical purposes, one might prefer S because it is\${\textbackslash}backslash\$neasier to score and produces higher reliability. However, this efficiency\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ncomes at the cost of validity. We would trade off validity and reliability\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nfor effi- ciency by including more propositions in C map.
@article{yin_application_2008,
title = {Application of {Generalizability} {Theory} to {Concept} {Map} {Assessment} {Research}},
volume = {21},
issn = {0895-7347},
doi = {10.1080/08957340802161840},
abstract = {In the first part of this article, the use of Generalizability (G)\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ntheory in examining the dependability of concept map assessment scores\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nand designing a concept map assessment for a particular practical\${\textbackslash}backslash\$napplication is discussed. In the second part, the application of\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nG theory is demonstrated by comparing the technical qualities of\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ntwo frequently used mapping techniques: construct-a-map with created\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nlinking phrases (C) and construct-a-map with selected linking phrases\${\textbackslash}backslash\$n(S). Some mea- surement facets that influence concept-map scores\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nare explored and how to opti- mize different concept mapping techniques\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nby varying the conditions for different facets is shown. It is found\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nthat C and S are not technically equivalent. The G coefficients for\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nS are larger than those for C under the same condition. Further-\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nmore, a decision(D) study shows that fewer items (propositions) would\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nbe needed for S than C to reach desired level of G coefficients if\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nonly one occasion could be afforded. On the other hand, C seems to\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nreveal students' understanding about dif- ferent concepts than S\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nbetter. For practical purposes, one might prefer S because it is\${\textbackslash}backslash\$neasier to score and produces higher reliability. However, this efficiency\${\textbackslash}backslash\$ncomes at the cost of validity. We would trade off validity and reliability\${\textbackslash}backslash\$nfor effi- ciency by including more propositions in C map.},
number = {3},
journal = {Applied Measurement in Education},
author = {Yin, Yue and Shavelson, Richard J.},
year = {2008},
pages = {273--291}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"c5CyeAvLLEfEBzK6s","bibbaseid":"yin-shavelson-applicationofgeneralizabilitytheorytoconceptmapassessmentresearch-2008","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-06-23T08:48:21.552Z","title":"Application of Generalizability Theory to Concept Map Assessment Research","author_short":["Yin, Y.","Shavelson, R. J."],"year":2008,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/Franck.Amadieu","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Application of Generalizability Theory to Concept Map Assessment Research","volume":"21","issn":"0895-7347","doi":"10.1080/08957340802161840","abstract":"In the first part of this article, the use of Generalizability (G)\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ntheory in examining the dependability of concept map assessment scores\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nand designing a concept map assessment for a particular practical\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$napplication is discussed. In the second part, the application of\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nG theory is demonstrated by comparing the technical qualities of\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ntwo frequently used mapping techniques: construct-a-map with created\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nlinking phrases (C) and construct-a-map with selected linking phrases\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$n(S). Some mea- surement facets that influence concept-map scores\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nare explored and how to opti- mize different concept mapping techniques\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nby varying the conditions for different facets is shown. It is found\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nthat C and S are not technically equivalent. The G coefficients for\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nS are larger than those for C under the same condition. Further-\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nmore, a decision(D) study shows that fewer items (propositions) would\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nbe needed for S than C to reach desired level of G coefficients if\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nonly one occasion could be afforded. On the other hand, C seems to\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nreveal students' understanding about dif- ferent concepts than S\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nbetter. For practical purposes, one might prefer S because it is\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$neasier to score and produces higher reliability. However, this efficiency\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ncomes at the cost of validity. We would trade off validity and reliability\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nfor effi- ciency by including more propositions in C map.","number":"3","journal":"Applied Measurement in Education","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Yin"],"firstnames":["Yue"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shavelson"],"firstnames":["Richard","J."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2008","pages":"273–291","bibtex":"@article{yin_application_2008,\n\ttitle = {Application of {Generalizability} {Theory} to {Concept} {Map} {Assessment} {Research}},\n\tvolume = {21},\n\tissn = {0895-7347},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/08957340802161840},\n\tabstract = {In the first part of this article, the use of Generalizability (G)\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ntheory in examining the dependability of concept map assessment scores\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nand designing a concept map assessment for a particular practical\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$napplication is discussed. In the second part, the application of\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nG theory is demonstrated by comparing the technical qualities of\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ntwo frequently used mapping techniques: construct-a-map with created\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nlinking phrases (C) and construct-a-map with selected linking phrases\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$n(S). Some mea- surement facets that influence concept-map scores\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nare explored and how to opti- mize different concept mapping techniques\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nby varying the conditions for different facets is shown. It is found\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nthat C and S are not technically equivalent. The G coefficients for\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nS are larger than those for C under the same condition. Further-\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nmore, a decision(D) study shows that fewer items (propositions) would\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nbe needed for S than C to reach desired level of G coefficients if\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nonly one occasion could be afforded. On the other hand, C seems to\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nreveal students' understanding about dif- ferent concepts than S\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nbetter. For practical purposes, one might prefer S because it is\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$neasier to score and produces higher reliability. However, this efficiency\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$ncomes at the cost of validity. We would trade off validity and reliability\\${\\textbackslash}backslash\\$nfor effi- ciency by including more propositions in C map.},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tjournal = {Applied Measurement in Education},\n\tauthor = {Yin, Yue and Shavelson, Richard J.},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tpages = {273--291}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Yin, Y.","Shavelson, R. J."],"key":"yin_application_2008","id":"yin_application_2008","bibbaseid":"yin-shavelson-applicationofgeneralizabilitytheorytoconceptmapassessmentresearch-2008","role":"author","urls":{},"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["application","generalizability","theory","concept","map","assessment","research","yin","shavelson"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["yEkkPKvCjvwCPFvPQ"]}