期刊文献+

评分者一致性自身特征结构影响因素的验证性研究 被引量:3

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Rater'S Own Characteristics Influencing Subjective Scoring Agreement
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 以通过探索性因子分析得出的影响主观评分一致性的评分者自身特征结构六因子模型为假设模型,以长期从事英语(或语文)教学且多次参加作文等主观题目评卷工作大学教师作为被试,进行测试,采用Lisrel(V8.70)软件对数据进行验证性分析。结果显示,最为合理的主观评分一致性自身特征因素结构应是五因子结构,即影响主观评分一致性的评分者自身特征结构为责任心、自信心、情绪稳定性、评分经验以及决断力。 The six-factor hypothetical model that represent the structure of rater's own characteristics influencing subjective scoring agreement is generated from the influence factors of subjective scoring agreement resulted from exploratory factor analysis. And viewing the university teachers as testing object who has long engaged in English (or Chinese) teaching and has many times participated in the marking essays and so on subjective topic marking work,the test is accomplished,and then the survey data obtained from the test is analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis using Lisrel (V8.70). The results showed that the most reasonable model of rater's own characteristics influencing subjective scoring agreement is five-factor model,that is,responsibility,self-confidence,stabilization of emotion,scoring experiences,and ability of implementing score.
作者 李斌
出处 《山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)》 北大核心 2010年第5期101-105,共5页 Journal of Shandong Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences)
关键词 验证性因子分析 因子结构模型 模型拟合指数 confirmatory factor analysis factor structure model model fitting index
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献108

  • 1温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,36(5):614-620. 被引量:8697
  • 2温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报,2005,37(2):268-274. 被引量:3396
  • 3温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量[J].心理学报,2006,38(3):448-452. 被引量:807
  • 4[1]Tucker L R, Lewis C. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1973, 38: 1~10
  • 5[2]Steiger J H, Lind J M. Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Psychometrika Society Meeting, IowaCity, May, 1980
  • 6[3]Bentler P M, Bonett D G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88: 588~ 606
  • 7[4]Bentler P M. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,1990, 107: 238~ 246
  • 8[5]McDonald R P, Marsh H W. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 1990,107: 247~ 255
  • 9[6]Marsh H W, Balla J R, Hau K T. An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In: Marcoulides G A, Schumacker R E eds. Advanced structural equation modeling techniques. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. 315~ 353
  • 10[7]Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K A, Long J S eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 136~ 162

共引文献1628

同被引文献41

  • 1纪凌开.分部评分模型与其它几种多级模型的比较[J].心理科学,2004,27(4):1000-1001. 被引量:7
  • 2苏永华,柴雪,丁玉洋.无领导小组讨论技术实施中的信度与效度问题研究[J].人类工效学,1998,4(2):29-31. 被引量:4
  • 3Andrich, D. (1995). Distinctive and incompatible properties of two common classes of IRT models for graded responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(1), 101-119.
  • 4Barkaoui, K. (2010). Explaining ESL essay holistic scores: A multilevel modeling approach. Language Testing, 27(4), 515-535.
  • 5Cook, K. F., Dodd, B. G., & Fitzpatrick, S. J. (1999). A comparison of three polytomous item response theory models in the context of testlet scoring. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(1), 1-20,.
  • 6De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). A framework for item response models. In P. De Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.),Explanatory item response models (pp. 3-41). New York:Springer.
  • 7Farrokhi, F., & Esfandiari, R. (2011). A many-facet Rasch model to detect halo effect in three types of raters. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1531-1540.
  • 8Fishman, G. S. (1972). Bias considerations in simulation experiments. Operations Research, 20(4), 785-790.
  • 9Guo, S. (2014). Correction of rater effects in longitudinal research with a cross- classified random effects model. Applied Psycbological Measurement, 38(1), 37-60.
  • 10Hoogland, J. J., & Boomsma, A. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 26(3), 329-367.

引证文献3

二级引证文献18

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部