Immediate knowledge of results during computerized achievement testing produces essentially no systematic differences in achievement estimates or response dimensionality¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 1980 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Comparing students who received immediate knowledge of results with students who received none showed essentially no systematic differences in achievement level estimates or in the dimensionality of responses, so local independence assumptions were not violated. → Weiss 1980

Evidence¶

Weiss 1980¶

Weiss, David J. (1980). Final Report: Computerized Adaptive Performance Evaluation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED187760

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Two studies (Research Report 80-1) comparing two groups of students on computer-administered tests, one receiving immediate knowledge of results and one receiving none. The report states there were essentially no systematic differences in achievement level estimates or in the dimensionality of the students' responses. The quotation below is OCR text from the ERIC scan, garbled as scanned; this sentence is a reading of it, not checked against a clean copy.

"The.restl indi- cated essentially no systematic differences iniachievement level eat mates or in the dimensionality of the students' responSeA as_a result of the adminis- tration of immediate knowledge of results."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Feedback improves learning by a medium amount on average, but its effect varies widely with the information it carries, and a substantial share of feedback effects are negative — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Feedback Enhances Retrieval Practice — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• A review reports that pretesting helps paired-associate learning only when correct-answer feedback is immediate, but helps trivia-fact learning even when feedback is delayed up to 24 hours — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Achievement dimensionality appears to change from pretest to end-of-course testing, questioning unidimensional ICC measurement of individual growth during instruction — related
• One- and two-parameter ICC scoring yields highly similar achievement estimates, while the three-parameter model reduces similarity, especially for adaptive test data — related
• The same achievement variable is measurable up to one month after instruction, supporting ICC-based retention measurement — related
• Cognitive process inference in computerized testing rarely rests on strong process data — related
• Immediate, informative test results enable teachers to differentiate instruction to individual needs — related
• A one-factor unidimensional model is the most reasonable fit for MAP computerized adaptive Reading and Mathematics tests across grades, terms, and ten states, though Michigan Mathematics misses the RMSEA criterion — related