comparing decision rules decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures...

37
Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha Bouwmeester, Guus Smeets, and Lidia Arends CEMO conference standard setting 23rd september 2015

Upload: marcia-alexander

Post on 01-Jan-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Comparing Decision Rules

Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational contextIris Yocarini, Samantha Bouwmeester, Guus Smeets, and Lidia ArendsCEMO conference standard setting 23rd september 2015

Page 2: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

The decision to be made

End of first bachelor year

Start of first bachelor year

Student to second bachelor year

Student leaves bachelor program

BSA decision

Page 3: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracy

• Given high stakes an accurate decision is required

• Comparison decision based on true score vs. observed score

True Score

Observed scoreError

Page 4: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracy

• Given high stakes an accurate decision is required

• Comparison decision based on true score vs. observed score

Decision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

MisclassificationFalse negative

Pass Misclassification False positive

Correct classification

Page 5: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracy

• Total proportion of misclassifications • (C + B / total sample)

Decision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

A MisclassificationFalse negative

B

Pass Misclassification False positive

C Correct classification

D

Page 6: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracy

• Total proportion of misclassifications • (C + B / total sample)

• False negative rate• from all truly competent students those who are identified as fails

(B/B+D)

Decision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

A MisclassificationFalse negative

B

Pass Misclassification False positive

C Correct classification

D

Page 7: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracyDecision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

A MisclassificationFalse negative

B

Pass Misclassification False positive

C Correct classification

D

• Total proportion of misclassifications • (C + B / total sample)

• False negative rate• from all truly competent students those who are identified as fails

(B/B+D)• False positive rate• from all truly failing students those who are identified as passes

(C/A+C)

Page 8: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision accuracyDecision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

A MisclassificationFalse negative

B

Pass Misclassification False positive

C Correct classification

D

• Total proportion of misclassifications • (C + B / total sample)

• False negative rate• from all truly competent students those who are identified as fails

(B/B+D)• False positive rate• from all truly failing students those who are identified as passes

(A/A+C)• Positive predictive value• from all students who passed those who are correctly classified

(D/C+D)

Page 9: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Testing system

• Compensatory testing system at Erasmus University Rotterdam• Vs. standard conjunctive testing system in Dutch

higher education

• Debate

Page 10: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Reasons behind implementation

• Educational views

• Psychometric argument• Classical Test Theory (CTT): average more

reliable

Assumption of parallel tests• Equal true ability levels• Similar test reliabilities

Page 11: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Factors influencing decision accuracy

• Reliability

• Decision accuracy

True Score

Observed score

ErrorDecision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

MisclassificationFalse negative

Pass Misclassification False positive

Correct classification

Error

Page 12: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision rules in practice

• Educational setting: combinatory decision rules• Compensatory aspect: required GPA• Conjunctive aspect: required minimum grade

• Clusters

• First year psychology at Erasmus University • Grading scale: 1.0 – 10.0• GPA: 6.0• Minimum grade: 4.0• Two clusters with each 8 courses

Page 13: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Our study

• Aim of study• Comparing decision accuracy different decision

rules that combine multiple tests• Evaluating psychometric argument for

implementation compensatory testing system• CTT: average grade is more reliable than using

individual test scores

• Context of first year Psychology students at Erasmus University Rotterdam

Page 14: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Decision rules

• Varying• Conjunctive aspect: minimum required grade• Compensatory aspect: required GPA

• Also included • Fully conjunctive rule• Fully compensatory rule

Decision rule Minimum grade GPA

Fully Conjunctive 5.5 5.5

Fully Compensatory

1.0 5.5 / 6.0 / 6.5

Complex rules 3.0 / 4.0 / 5.0 5.5 / 6.0 / 6.5

*Grading from 1.0 to 10.0

Page 15: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Simulation

• Simulation study

• Manipulation of factors

Decision based on true score

Fail Pass

Decision based on observed score

Fail Correct classification

MisclassificationFalse negative

Pass Misclassification False positive

Correct classification

Page 16: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – minimum grade & GPA

• Minimum grade • 1.0/ 3.0/ 4.0/ 5.0• GPA• 5.5/ 6.0/ 6.5

Page 17: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – minimum grade & GPA

Page 18: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – minimum grade & GPA

Page 19: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – minimum grade & GPA

Page 20: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – average test reliability

Proportion of Misclassifications

Page 21: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – average test reliability

Positive Predictive Value

Page 22: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – number of retakes

Proportion of Misclassifications

Page 23: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – number of retakes

False Negative Rate

Page 24: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – number of retakes

False Positive Rate

Page 25: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – number of retakes

Positive Predictive Value

Page 26: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Comparison conjunctive & compensatory• In compensatory decision rule:• Fewer classification errors• Fewer false negatives, more false positives• Positive predictive value higher

Page 27: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Conclusion

• Increasing the degree of compensation results in less classification errors

• Within compensatory decision rule relatively fewer false negatives and more false positives

• Depends on specific setting & tests used• Most important: test reliability and number of

retakes

• Psychometric argument• Standard setting

Page 28: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Take home message

• Decision accuracy important consideration• Focus on both specific decision rule as well as tests

Page 29: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?

[email protected]

Page 30: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha
Page 31: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – proportion of misclassifications

Decision Rule

GPA

Minimum

MeanProportion

Errors

Average TestCorrelation

Average TestReliability

Number ofTests

Number ofRetakes

.1 .3 .5 .7 .4 .6 .8 8 12 0 2

1 5.5 5.5 .18 .16 .18 .19 .19 .24 .18 .12 .19 .17 .20 .16

2 5.5 1 .05 .03 .04 .05 .06 .06 .04 .03 .05 .04 .06 .03

3 5.5 3 .08 .09 .09 .08 .07 .14 .07 .04 .08 .09 .13 .04

4 5.5 4 .17 .20 .18 .16 .13 .27 .16 .08 .15 .19 .26 .08

5 5.5 5 .22 .23 .23 .22 .21 .31 .22 .14 .22 .23 .28 .16

6 6 1 .09 .09 .10 .09 .09 .13 .09 .06 .10 .09 .10 .08

7 6 3 .11 .13 .11 .10 .09 .16 .10 .06 .11 .11 .14 .08

8 6 4 .16 .20 .17 .14 .12 .24 .15 .08 .15 .17 .22 .10

9 6 5 .21 .23 .22 .21 .19 .29 .21 .13 .20 .22 .27 .15

10 6.5 1 .13 .17 .13 .12 .10 .18 .13 .08 .14 .12 .13 .13

11 6.5 3 .13 .17 .14 .12 .10 .19 .13 .08 .14 .13 .13 .13

12 6.5 4 .15 .19 .15 .13 .11 .21 .14 .09 .15 .14 .16 .13

13 6.5 5 .17 .20 .18 .16 .14 .24 .17 .11 .17 .17 .20 .14

Page 32: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results - sensitivity

Decision Rule

GPA

Minimum

MeanSensitivity

Average TestCorrelation

Average Test Reliability

Number ofTests

Number of Retakes

.1 .3 .5 .7 .4 .6 .8 8 12 0 2

1 5.5 5.5 .60 .52 .59 .64 .67 .45 .60 .76 .65 .56 .44 .77

2 5.5 1 .97 .98 .97 .97 .97 .96 .98 .99 .97 .98 .96 .99

3 5.5 3 .93 .91 .92 .93 .95 .87 .94 .98 .94 .92 .88 .98

4 5.5 4 .83 .79 .81 .84 .87 .71 .84 .93 .85 .80 .71 .94

5 5.5 5 .67 .61 .66 .69 .72 .52 .68 .82 .71 .63 .51 .83

6 6 1 .95 .94 .95 .95 .95 .93 .95 .97 .94 .95 .92 .98

7 6 3 .92 .90 .91 .93 .94 .87 .93 .96 .92 .92 .87 .97

8 6 4 .85 .80 .83 .87 .90 .74 .86 .93 .87 .83 .75 .95

9 6 5 .68 .61 .67 .71 .75 .53 .69 .83 .73 .64 .52 .84

10 6.5 1 .92 .89 .91 .93 .94 .89 .92 .94 .91 .92 .88 .96

11 6.5 3 .90 .86 .90 .92 .93 .86 .91 .94 .90 .90 .85 .95

12 6.5 4 .86 .80 .85 .88 .91 .78 .87 .93 .87 .85 .78 .94

13 6.5 5 .73 .64 .71 .76 .81 .59 .74 .86 .77 .69 .58 .88

Page 33: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results - specificity

Decision Rule

GPA

Minimum

MeanSpecificity

Average TestCorrelation

Average TestReliability

Number ofTests

Number ofRetakes

.1 .3 .5 .7 .4 .6 .8 8 12 0 2

1 5.5 5.5 .93 .92 .92 .93 .94 .93 .92 .93 .91 .94 .96 .89

2 5.5 1 .67 .57 .66 .71 .74 .58 .67 .77 .66 .69 .76 .58

3 5.5 3 .72 .66 .72 .75 .77 .69 .71 .77 .70 .75 .82 .63

4 5.5 4 .80 .75 .79 .83 .85 .82 .79 .81 .78 .83 .87 .74

5 5.5 5 .89 .86 .88 .90 .92 .90 .88 .89 .87 .91 .93 .85

6 6 1 .73 .65 .73 .77 .79 .64 .73 .82 .72 .75 .81 .65

7 6 3 .75 .68 .75 .78 .80 .69 .74 .83 .73 .77 .84 .66

8 6 4 .80 .75 .80 .82 .83 .78 .78 .84 .78 .82 .88 .72

9 6 5 .89 .86 .88 .90 .91 .90 .88 .89 .87 .91 .93 .84

10 6.5 1 .80 .74 .80 .83 .84 .72 .80 .88 .79 .82 .87 .74

11 6.5 3 .81 .75 .80 .83 .84 .73 .81 .88 .79 .82 .87 .74

12 6.5 4 .83 .78 .82 .85 .86 .78 .82 .89 .81 .85 .90 .76

13 6.5 5 .88 .87 .88 .89 .90 .88 .87 .90 .86 .91 .94 .83

Page 34: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – positive predictive value

Decision Rule

GPA

Minimum

MeanPositive

PredictiveValue

Average TestCorrelation

Average TestReliability

Number ofTests

Number ofRetakes

.1 .3 .5 .7 .4 .6 .8 8 12 0 2

1 5.5 5.5 .82 .68 .80 .88 .93 .79 .82 .86 .83 .81 .79 .86

2 5.5 1 .98 .99 .98 .97 .96 .97 .98 .98 .97 .98 .98 .97

3 5.5 3 .98 .99 .98 .97 .97 .97 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 .97

4 5.5 4 .97 .96 .97 .97 .98 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97

5 5.5 5 .90 .82 .88 .93 .96 .88 .89 .91 .91 .89 .87 .92

6 6 1 .93 .95 .93 .93 .93 .91 .93 .96 .93 .94 .94 .93

7 6 3 .94 .95 .94 .93 .93 .92 .94 .96 .93 .94 .95 .93

8 6 4 .94 .94 .94 .94 .94 .93 .93 .95 .93 .94 .94 .93

9 6 5 .89 .81 .88 .92 .95 .88 .89 .91 .90 .89 .87 .91

10 6.5 1 .85 .82 .85 .87 .88 .80 .85 .91 .85 .86 .87 .84

11 6.5 3 .86 .82 .85 .87 .88 .81 .85 .91 .85 .86 .87 .84

12 6.5 4 .86 .82 .86 .87 .88 .82 .86 .91 .85 .87 .88 .85

13 6.5 5 .85 .77 .85 .89 .91 .83 .84 .89 .85 .86 .85 .85

Page 35: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – average test reliability

False Negative Rate

Page 36: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Results – average test reliability

False Positive Rate

Page 37: Comparing Decision Rules Decision accuracy of different decision rules combining multiple measures in a higher educational context Iris Yocarini, Samantha

Previous studies

• Douglas & Mislevy (2010)• Van Rijn, Béguin, & Verstralen (2012)• McBee, Peters, & Waterman (2014)