Solve attributes differ in discrimination: the environment attribute strongly separated proficiency groups while the learned-procedure attribute did not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1993 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mastery probabilities for the environment attribute rose from .47 (low) to .60 (medium) to .97 (high) proficiency, while the learned-procedure attribute's means were very similar across groups. → Katz 1993

Evidence¶

Katz 1993¶

Katz, I. R., Martinez, M. E., Sheehan, K. M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1993). Extending the Rule Space Model to a Semantically-Rich Domain: Diagnostic Assessment in Architecture. Educational Testing Service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED366652 doi:10.21236/ada273789

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Table 9 mean mastery probabilities for solve attributes by proficiency group. The authors call the environment attribute "highly discriminating" given its .47/.60/.97 probabilities, whereas the learned-procedure attribute's three means were very similar and unhelpful for discrimination.

"On average, low proficiency examinees mastered this attribute with a probability of .47; the corresponding probabilities for medium and high proficiency examinees are .60 and .97, respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Attribute mastery showed significant proficiency-group, attribute, and attribute-by-proficiency effects, but no significant status-group main effect — a broader claim this one bears on
• Rule Space successfully classified most examinees in architecture, with solve attributes the most powerful and check attributes the least powerful — related