More Like this

1. Adaptation of the Delphi technique in the development of assessments of problem-solving in computer adaptive testing environments (DEAP-CAT).

   https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.2142  

   Koskey, K. L. ; Bright, D. ; Struloeff, K. ; Sondergeld, T. ; Stone, G. ; Bostic, J. ; Matney, G. ( November 2021 , Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation)

   The Standards for educational and psychological assessment were developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (AERA et al., 2014). The Standards specify assessment developers establish five types of validity evidence: test content, response processes, internal structure, relationship to other variables, and consequential/bias. Relevant to this proposal is consequential validity evidence that identifies the potential negative impact of testing or bias. Standard 3.1 of The Standards (2014) on fairness in testing states that “those responsible for test development, revision, and administration should design all steps of the testing process to promote valid score interpretations for intended score uses for the widest possible range of individuals and relevant sub-groups in the intended populations” (p. 63). Three types of bias include construct, method, and item bias (Boer et al., 2018). Testing for differential item functioning (DIF) is a standard analysis adopted to detect item bias against a subgroup (Boer et al., 2018). Example subgroups include gender, race/ethnic group, socioeconomic status, native language, or disability. DIF is when “equally able test takers differ in their probabilities answering a test item correctly as a function of group membership” (AERA et al., 2005, p. 51). DIF indicates systematic error as compared to real mean group differences (Camilli & Shepard, 1994). Items exhibiting significant DIF are removed or reviewed for sources leading to bias to determine modifications to retain and further test an item. The Delphi technique is an emergent systematic research method whereby expert panel members review item content through an iterative process (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018). Experts independently evaluate each item for potential sources leading to DIF, researchers group their responses, and experts then independently complete a survey to rate their level of agreement with the anonymously grouped responses. This process continues until saturation and consensus are reached among experts as established through some criterion (e.g., median agreement rating, item quartile range, and percent agreement). The technique allows researchers to “identify, learn, and share the ideas of experts by searching for agreement among experts” (Yildirim & Büyüköztürk, 2018, p. 451). Research has illustrated this technique applied after DIF is detected, but not before administering items in the field. The current research is a methodological illustration of the Delphi technique applied in the item construction phase of assessment development as part of a five-year study to develop and test new problem-solving measures (PSM; Bostic et al., 2015, 2017) for U.S.A. grades 6-8 in a computer adaptive testing environment. As part of an iterative design-science-based methodology (Middleton et al., 2008), we illustrate the integration of the Delphi technique into the item writing process. Results from two three-person panels each reviewing a set of 45 PSM items are utilized to illustrate the technique. Advantages and limitations identified through a survey by participating experts and researchers are outlined to advance the method. 

   more » « less
2. The Effects of Gist Information and Scientific Quality on Damages in a Civil Trial

   Dellapaolera, K.S. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 

   more » « less
3. Developing a measure to capture middle school students’ interpretive understanding of engineering design

   Piña, Jeremiah ; Ellis, Glenn W ; Rudnitsky, Al ; Mazur, Rebecca ; McGinnis-Cavanaugh, Beth ; Huff, Isabel ( July 2021 , 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   This research paper describes the development of an assessment instrument for use with middle school students that provides insight into students’ interpretive understanding by looking at early indicators of developing expertise in students’ responses to solution generation, reflection, and concept demonstration tasks. We begin by detailing a synthetic assessment model that served as the theoretical basis for assessing specific thinking skills. We then describe our process of developing test items by working with a Teacher Design Team (TDT) of instructors in our partner school system to set guidelines that would better orient the assessment in that context and working within the framework of standards and disciplinary core ideas enumerated in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We next specify our process of refining the assessment from 17 items across three separate item pools to a final total of three open-response items. We then provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the assessment instrument from the standards of (1) content, (2) meaningfulness, (3) generalizability, and (4) instructional sensitivity. As part of the discussion from the standards of generalizability and instructional sensitivity, we detail a study carried out in our partner school system in the fall of 2019. The instrument was administered to students in treatment (n= 201) and non-treatment (n = 246) groups, wherein the former participated in a two-to-three-week, NGSS-aligned experimental instructional unit introducing the principles of engineering design that focused on engaging students using the Imaginative Education teaching approach. The latter group were taught using the district’s existing engineering design curriculum. Results from statistical analysis of student responses showed that the interrater reliability of the scoring procedures were good-to-excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients ranging between .72 and .95. To gauge the instructional sensitivity of the assessment instrument, a series of non-parametric comparative analyses (independent two-group Mann-Whitney tests) were carried out. These found statistically significant differences between treatment and non-treatment student responses related to the outcomes of fluency and elaboration, but not reflection. 

   more » « less
4. Developing a measure to capture middle school students’ interpretive understanding of engineering design

   Piña, Jeremiah ; Ellis, Glenn W ; Rudnitsky, Al ; Mazur, Rebecca ; McGinnis-Cavanaugh, Beth ; Huff, Isabel ( July 2021 , 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   This research paper describes the development of an assessment instrument for use with middle school students that provides insight into students’ interpretive understanding by looking at early indicators of developing expertise in students’ responses to solution generation, reflection, and concept demonstration tasks. We begin by detailing a synthetic assessment model that served as the theoretical basis for assessing specific thinking skills. We then describe our process of developing test items by working with a Teacher Design Team (TDT) of instructors in our partner school system to set guidelines that would better orient the assessment in that context and working within the framework of standards and disciplinary core ideas enumerated in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We next specify our process of refining the assessment from 17 items across three separate item pools to a final total of three open-response items. We then provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the assessment instrument from the standards of (1) content, (2) meaningfulness, (3) generalizability, and (4) instructional sensitivity. As part of the discussion from the standards of generalizability and instructional sensitivity, we detail a study carried out in our partner school system in the fall of 2019. The instrument was administered to students in treatment (n= 201) and non- treatment (n = 246) groups, wherein the former participated in a two-to-three- week, NGSS-aligned experimental instructional unit introducing the principles of engineering design that focused on engaging students using the Imaginative Education teaching approach. The latter group were taught using the district’s existing engineering design curriculum. Results from statistical analysis of student responses showed that the interrater reliability of the scoring procedures were good-to-excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients ranging between .72 and .95. To gauge the instructional sensitivity of the assessment instrument, a series of non-parametric comparative analyses (independent two-group Mann- Whitney tests) were carried out. These found statistically significant differences between treatment and non-treatment student responses related to the outcomes of fluency and elaboration, but not reflection. 

   more » « less
5. Survey & Experimental Evidence of Cognitive Biases in Psychologists’ Judgments

   Neal, Tess M.S. ; Pronin, Emily ( February 2019 , Society for Personality & Social Psychology)

   Three studies (1 survey, 2 experiments) examine cognitive biases in the professional judgments of nationally-representative samples of psychologists working in legal contexts. Study 1 (N= 84) demonstrates robust evidence of the bias blind spot (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002) in experts’ judgments. Psychologists rated their own susceptibility to bias in their professional work lower than their colleagues (and laypeople). As expected, they perceived bias mitigating procedures as more threatening to their own domain than outside domains, and more experience was correlated with higher perceived threat of bias mitigating procedures. Experimental studies 2 (N=118) & 3 (N=128) with randomly-selected psychologists reveals psychologists overwhelmingly engage in confirmation bias (93% with one decision opportunity in study 1, and 90%, 87%, and 82% across three decision opportunities in study 2). Cognitive reflection was negatively correlated with confirmation bias. Psychologists were also susceptible to order effects in that the order of symptoms presented affected their diagnoses–even though the same symptoms existed in the different scenarios (in opposite orders). 

   more » « less