Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Front Psychol ; 9: 1492, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30233442

RESUMO

In recent decades there have been significant changes in the conceptualization of reading as well as in the perception of how this activity should be assessed. Interest in the analysis of reading processes has led to the emergence of new explanatory models based primarily on the contributions of cognitive psychology. In parallel, there have been notable advances in measurement procedures, especially in models based on Item Response Theory (IRT), as well as in the capacity and performance of specific software programs that allow data to be managed and analyzed. These changes have contributed significantly to the rise of testing procedures such as computerized adaptive tests (CATs), whose fundamental characteristic is that the sequence of items presented in the tests is adapted to the level of competence that the subject manifests. Likewise, the incorporation of elements of dynamic assessment (DA) as the prompts are gradually offered allows for obtaining information about the type and degree of support required to optimize the subject's performance. In this sense, the confluence of contributions from DA and CATs offers a new possibility for approaching the assessment of learning processes. In this article, we present a longitudinal research developed in two phases, through which a computerized dynamic adaptive assessment battery of reading processes (EDPL-BAI) was configured. The research frame involved 1,831 students (46% girls) from 13 public schools in three regions of Chile. The purpose of this study was to analyze the differential contribution on reading competence of dynamic scores obtained in a subsample composed of 324 (47% girls) students from third to sixth grade after the implementation of a set of adaptive dynamic tests of morpho-syntactic processes. The results achieved in the structural equation modeling indicate a good global fit. Individual relationships show a significant contribution of calibrated score that reflects estimated knowledge level on reading competence, as well as dynamic scores based on the assigned value of graduated prompts required by the students. These results showed significant predictive values on reading competence and incremental validity in relation to predictions made by static criterion tests.

2.
F1000Res ; 4: 21, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26594326

RESUMO

Peer review is the "gold standard" for evaluating journal and conference papers, research proposals, on-going projects and university departments. However, it is widely believed that current systems are expensive, conservative and prone to various forms of bias. One form of bias identified in the literature is "social bias" linked to the personal attributes of authors and reviewers. To quantify the importance of this form of bias in modern peer review, we analyze three datasets providing information on the attributes of authors and reviewers and review outcomes: one from Frontiers - an open access publishing house with a novel interactive review process, and two from Spanish and international computer science conferences, which use traditional peer review. We use a random intercept model in which review outcome is the dependent variable, author and reviewer attributes are the independent variables and bias is defined by the interaction between author and reviewer attributes. We find no evidence of bias in terms of gender, or the language or prestige of author and reviewer institutions in any of the three datasets, but some weak evidence of regional bias in all three. Reviewer gender and the language and prestige of reviewer institutions appear to have little effect on review outcomes, but author gender, and the characteristics of author institutions have moderate to large effects. The methodology used cannot determine whether these are due to objective differences in scientific merit or entrenched biases shared by all reviewers.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA