Search for: All records

Determining the most appropriate method of scoring an assessment is based on multiple factors, including the intended use of results, the assessment's purpose, and time constraints. Both the dichotomous and partial credit models have their advantages, yet direct comparisons of assessment outcomes from each method are not typical with constructed response items. The present study compared the impact of both scoring methods on the internal structure and consequential validity of a middle-grades problem-solving assessment called the problem solving measure for grade six (PSM6). After being scored both ways, Rasch dichotomous and partial credit analyses indicated similarly strong psychometric findings across models. Student outcome measures on the PSM6, scored both dichotomously and with partial credit, demonstrated strong, positive, significant correlation. Similar demographic patterns were noted regardless of scoring method. Both scoring methods produced similar results, suggesting that either would be appropriate to use with the PSM6. 

We explore linguistic features that contribute to sarcasm detection. The linguistic features that we investigate are a combination of text and word complexity, stylistic and psychological features. We experiment with sarcastic tweets with and without context. The results of our experiments indicate that contextual information is crucial for sarcasm prediction. One important observation is that sarcastic tweets are typically incongruent with their context in terms of sentiment or emotional load. 

As early as Descartes (1637/1970), logic and reason have been positioned as tools for individuals to advance their own understanding. By contrast, argumentation is an interactive, social exercise used for persuasion, collective cognition, and to advance shared knowledge (Mercier & Sperber, 2011, 2017). When one advances an argument, subjects it to the tests and challenges of others, and responds to questions and counterarguments, one’s thinking improves (Mercier & Sperber, 2017). Through argumentation, groups produce correct solutions more often than individuals (Moshman & Geil, 1998) and individual accuracy improves as well (Castelain, Girotto, Jamet, & Mercier, 2016). Since it was formally introduced by Kane (1990, 1992), the argument-based approach to validation has been promoted in the field of educational and psychological measurement as the preferred method for validating interpretations and uses of test scores (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014; Kane, 2013; Schilling & Hill, 2007). Scholars continue to debate the best approaches for developing and supporting validity arguments, however (for examples, see Brennan, 2013; Kane, 2007).