Human inter-rater reliability with a single rubric exceeded the ±5-point equivalence margin used for rubric-source comparisons¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
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.
q3 i? Among four human evaluators applying the human-created rubric, ICC(2,1) ranged from 0.878 to 0.905 and MAD ranged from 7.91 to 9.19 points, exceeding the ±5-point margin. → Pedro C. Mendonça 2026
Evidence¶
Pedro C. Mendonça 2026¶
Pedro C. Mendonça, Filipe Quintal, Mário Figueiredo, Karolina Baras, Fábio Mendonça. (2026). A hybrid reasoning framework for artificial intelligence assessment rubric generation in human and automated contexts: Evidence from an undergraduate programming course. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 11 (2026) 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100663
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Baseline inter-rater reliability analysis (Table 2): four subject-matter specialist evaluators scored all responses with the human-created rubric across three assignments (N = 138, 90, 80). MAD ranged from 7.91 to 9.19 points on the 100-point scale.
"Agreement among human evaluators was consistently high, with ICC (2,1) ranging from 0.878 to 0.905 and ICC(2,k) ranging from 0.966 to 0.974."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Raters differed significantly in severity/leniency in the MFRM analysis — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- When applied by human evaluators, all four AI-generated rubrics met pooled scoring equivalence with a human-created baseline within a ±5-point margin — related
- Equivalence failures under human evaluators were confined to five assignment-by-question-type cells, four of them on code questions — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
human-inter-rater-disagreement-exceeds-margin |
title |
Human inter-rater reliability with a single rubric exceeded the ±5-point equivalence margin used for rubric-source comparisons |
description |
Human inter-rater reliability with a single rubric exceeded the ±5-point equivalence margin used for rubric-source comparisons |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — pedro-c-mendonça-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.