Identifying Misfitting Achievement Estimates in Performance Assessments: An Illustration Using Rasch and Mokken Scale Analyses

Researchers apply individual person fit analyses as a procedure for checking model-data fit for individual test-takers. When a test-taker misfits, it means that the inferences from their test score regarding what they know and can do may not be accurate. One problem in applying individual person fit procedures in practice is the question of how much misfit it takes to make the test score an untrustworthy estimate of achievement. In this paper, we argue that if a person’s responses generally follow a monotonic pattern, the resulting test score is “good enough” to be interpreted and used. We present an approach that applies statistical procedures from the Rasch and Mokken measurement perspectives to examine individual person fit based on this good enough criterion in real data from a performance assessment. We discuss how these perspectives may facilitate thinking about applying individual person fit procedures in practice.     

Discriminating adults' genuine,imagined, and deceptive accounts of positive and negative childhood events

We examined the qualitative characteristics of genuine, imagined, and deceptive accounts of positive and negative childhood events. We investigated whether trained raters could discriminate between these accounts using the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ; Johnson, Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988) and the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales (ARJS; S. L. Sporer, paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology‐Law Society in Redondo Beach, California, March 1988 ). Participants generated three accounts. The first account was of an event that participants genuinely experienced in childhood. The second account was of an event that participants did not experience, but merely imagined happened in childhood. The third account was of an event that participants did not experience, but wrote a deceptive account to convince someone else that the event really happened in childhood. Half our participants wrote about positive events and half wrote about negative events. Ratings made by two trained judges indicated that genuine, imagined, and deceptive accounts were qualitatively different on both the MCQ and ARJS. Moreover, based on the MCQ and ARJS scores raters could discriminate whether the events had been genuinely experienced. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stress experience and performance during an oral exam: the role of self-efficacy,threat appraisals,anxiety, and cortisol

Background and Objectives: High self-efficacy may reduce emotional and physiological stress responses in the context of an examination. The present study investigated how these stress responses develop on an exam day, and sequential indirect effects between self-efficacy, threat appraisals, stress responses and performance.

Design and Methods: The sample comprised 92 students (46 women). Self-efficacy, threat appraisals and state anxiety were assessed on a control day one week before an oral exam. Additionally, anxiety was assessed three times on the exam day. Salivary cortisol samples were collected at all time points.

Results: Pre-exam anxiety and cortisol decreased until grades were announced. For both responses, greater levels were related to a steeper decline. However, changes in anxiety and cortisol were unrelated. Self-efficacy was negatively related to threat appraisals and anxiety on the control day. Greater threat appraisals were associated with higher pre-exam anxiety and a steeper anxiety decrease on the exam day, which in turn, was related to better performance.

Conclusions: High levels of self-efficacy may reduce threat appraisals and anxiety in the lead up to an exam, which are related to the intensity and decline of anxiety on the exam day. A steeper decline of anxiety may be beneficial to performance.