首页> 外文期刊>International journal of selection and assessment >Option weights should be determined empirically and not by experts when assessing knowledge with multiple-choice items
【24h】

Option weights should be determined empirically and not by experts when assessing knowledge with multiple-choice items

机译:当评估具有多项选择项目的知识时,应经验而不是由专家确定的选择权重

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Multiple-choice tests are frequently used in personnel selection contexts to measure knowledge and abilities. Option weighting is an alternative multiple-choice scoring procedure that awards partial credit for incomplete knowledge reflected in applicants' distractor choices. We investigated whether option weights should be based on expert judgment or on empirical data when trying to outperform conventional number-right scoring in terms of reliability and validity. To obtain generalizable results, we used repeated random sub-sampling validation and found that empirical option weighting, but not expert option weighting, increased the reliability of a knowledge test. Neither option weighting procedure improved test validity. We recommend to improve the reliability of existing ability and knowledge tests used for personnel selection by computing and publishing empirical option weights.
机译:人员选择背景常用多项选择测试以衡量知识和能力。期权加权是一种替代的多项选择评分程序,即在申请人的分散组选择中反映了不完整知识的部分信贷。我们调查了选项权重应基于专家判断或在试图在可靠性和有效性方面优于常规号码评分时的经验数据。为了获得更广泛的结果,我们使用重复的随机子采样验证,并发现经验期权加权,但不是专家选项加权,提高了知识测试的可靠性。既不是选项加权程序都没有提高测试有效性。我们建议通过计算和发布经验期权重量来提高用于人员选择的现有能力和知识测试的可靠性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号