E-M scoring partially accounts for observed RIT score differences between disengaged first tests and engaged retests¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-09 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Among students retested within one day who showed disengagement (10%+ rapid guesses) on the first test and zero rapid guesses on the retest, E-M scores partially accounted for the observed RIT score differences. → study1
Evidence¶
study1¶
Wise, S., & Kuhfeld, M. (2020, September). Using retest data to evaluate and improve effort-moderated scoring. National Council on Measurement in Education virtual conference. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/using-retest-data-to-evaluate-and-improve-effort-moderated-scoring-presentation/
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Study 1, an archival analysis of MAP Growth RIT-score data from students retested within a short period, identified "over 5,000 cases" of disengagement on first testing with zero rapid guesses on retest; Table 1 showed E-M scores "partially accounted for the observed RIT score differences."
"Within this group, over 5,000 cases were found in which students exhibited disengagement (10%+ rapid guesses) on the first testing and zero rapid guesses on the retest. Table 1 shows that E-M scores partially accounted for the observed RIT score differences."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Test-taking disengagement frequently differs between a MAP Growth initial test and a same-day retest — related
- Test disengagement could undermine inferences drawn from observed achievement scores — related
- Standard effort-moderated scoring accounts for roughly one-third of score distortion due to differential disengagement on low-stakes achievement tests — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- A modified E-M scoring method using more liberal time thresholds accounts for two-thirds or more of score distortion, outperforming standard thresholds — related
- E-M scoring leaves residual score distortion, suggesting some disengaged test responses are nonrapid rather than rapid guesses — related
- Seriously disengaged initial testers who stopped rapid-guessing on retest showed large RIT gains, averaging about 6 points in Reading and 12 in Math — related
- Students who rapid-guess less on a MAP Growth retest tend to see score gains, while those who rapid-guess more tend to see declines — related
- Rapid guesses on MAP Growth reflect a lack of engagement rather than a lack of knowledge — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
em-scoring-partially-accounts-retest-score-differences |
title |
E-M scoring partially accounts for observed RIT score differences between disengaged first tests and engaged retests |
description |
E-M scoring partially accounts for observed RIT score differences between disengaged first tests and engaged retests |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
source_checked |
2026-10-09 |
recheck_by |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — study1 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.