Abstract
Because rubrics are the foundation of a rater's scoring process, principled rubric use requires systematic review as rubrics are adopted and adapted (Crusan, 2010, p. 72) into different local contexts. However, detailed accounts of rubric adaptations are somewhat rare. This article presents a mixed-methods (Brown, 2015) study assessing the functioning of a well-known rubric (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hugley 1981, p. 30) according to both Rasch measurement and profile analysis (n = 524), which were respectively used to analyze the scale structure and then to describe how well the rubric was classifying examinees. Upon finding that there were concerns about a lack of distinction within the rubric's scale structure, the authors decided to adapt this rubric according to theoretical and empirical criteria. The resulting scale structure was then piloted by two program outsiders and analyzed again according to Rasch measurement, placement being measured by profile analysis (n = 80). While the revised rubric can continue to be fine-tuned, this study describes how one research team developed an ongoing rubric analysis, something that these authors recommend be developed more regularly in other contexts that use high-stakes performance assessment.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 51-66 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Assessing Writing |
| Volume | 26 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 Oct 1 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Academic writing
- Mixed-methods
- Profile analysis
- Rasch measurement
- Rubrics
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Education
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
Building a better rubric : Mixed methods rubric revision. / Janssen, Gerriet; Meier, Valerie; Trace, Jonathan.
In: Assessing Writing, Vol. 26, 01.10.2015, p. 51-66.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Building a better rubric
T2 - Mixed methods rubric revision
AU - Janssen, Gerriet
AU - Meier, Valerie
AU - Trace, Jonathan
PY - 2015/10/1
Y1 - 2015/10/1
N2 - Because rubrics are the foundation of a rater's scoring process, principled rubric use requires systematic review as rubrics are adopted and adapted (Crusan, 2010, p. 72) into different local contexts. However, detailed accounts of rubric adaptations are somewhat rare. This article presents a mixed-methods (Brown, 2015) study assessing the functioning of a well-known rubric (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hugley 1981, p. 30) according to both Rasch measurement and profile analysis (n = 524), which were respectively used to analyze the scale structure and then to describe how well the rubric was classifying examinees. Upon finding that there were concerns about a lack of distinction within the rubric's scale structure, the authors decided to adapt this rubric according to theoretical and empirical criteria. The resulting scale structure was then piloted by two program outsiders and analyzed again according to Rasch measurement, placement being measured by profile analysis (n = 80). While the revised rubric can continue to be fine-tuned, this study describes how one research team developed an ongoing rubric analysis, something that these authors recommend be developed more regularly in other contexts that use high-stakes performance assessment.
AB - Because rubrics are the foundation of a rater's scoring process, principled rubric use requires systematic review as rubrics are adopted and adapted (Crusan, 2010, p. 72) into different local contexts. However, detailed accounts of rubric adaptations are somewhat rare. This article presents a mixed-methods (Brown, 2015) study assessing the functioning of a well-known rubric (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hugley 1981, p. 30) according to both Rasch measurement and profile analysis (n = 524), which were respectively used to analyze the scale structure and then to describe how well the rubric was classifying examinees. Upon finding that there were concerns about a lack of distinction within the rubric's scale structure, the authors decided to adapt this rubric according to theoretical and empirical criteria. The resulting scale structure was then piloted by two program outsiders and analyzed again according to Rasch measurement, placement being measured by profile analysis (n = 80). While the revised rubric can continue to be fine-tuned, this study describes how one research team developed an ongoing rubric analysis, something that these authors recommend be developed more regularly in other contexts that use high-stakes performance assessment.
KW - Academic writing
KW - Mixed-methods
KW - Profile analysis
KW - Rasch measurement
KW - Rubrics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941993180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941993180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002
DO - 10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84941993180
VL - 26
SP - 51
EP - 66
JO - Assessing Writing
JF - Assessing Writing
SN - 1075-2935
ER -