Claims

Item analysis flags items whose marking instructions mislead peer assessors

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · 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.

q2 i? On CA-2007 question Q7, peers were far more severe (p=0.74) than the teacher (p=0.59), traced to marking instructions that did not preserve independence of the marking scheme's parts; Q7 was excluded from the validity analysis. → Bouzidi 2009

Evidence

Bouzidi 2009

Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted?. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268. https://www.ifets.info/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Item analysis of the CA-2007 exam (13 items, 94 sheets): difficulty indexes for Q7 diverged between peers and teacher, and the authors attribute this to "a poor indication of the marking instructions for this item", so Q7 was disregarded in the validity analysis.

"the students marked the answers to question Q7 severely (p=0.74), whereas the teacher marked the answers to the same question with average severity (p=0.59). The difference is too large to be explained by chance alone."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id item-analysis-flags-marking-instruction-problems
title Item analysis flags items whose marking instructions mislead peer assessors
description Item analysis flags items whose marking instructions mislead peer assessors
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2009
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — bouzidi-2009

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.