Providing a rubric does not significantly improve relative accuracy of self-assessment across criteria¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The rubric and control groups did not differ significantly in relative accuracy (gamma correlations of 0.58 vs. 0.41). → Rebecca Krebs 2022

Evidence¶

Rebecca Krebs 2022¶

Rebecca Krebs, Björn Rothstein, Julian Roelle. (2022). Rubrics enhance accuracy and reduce cognitive load in self-assessment. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09302-1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Gamma correlations between self-assessments and performance across the four criteria; 23 participants with tied scores were excluded. "we did not find a statistically significant difference between the groups"; equivalence was not tested.

"In terms of relative accuracy, by contrast, we did not find a statistically significant difference between the groups, t(67) = -0.85, p = 0.198 (one-sided), d = 0.21."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
• The benefits of rubrics on self-assessment accuracy do not depend on the inferential level of the assessment criteria — related
• Structured criteria in peer assessment are not shown to improve its effect on academic performance over freeform review — related
• Using rubrics has a positive, moderate effect on students' academic performance (corrected g = 0.45; standardized mean change = 0.38) — related
• Providing a rubric during self-assessment improves the absolute accuracy of high school students' self-assessments of written scientific abstracts — related
• Exploratory tests found no significant interaction between receiving a rubric and learners' task performance on self-assessment accuracy or cognitive load — related