Sentence examples for analytical judgements from inspiring English sources

One of the main reasons for high reliability of relative comparative judgements compared to absolute analytical judgements is that, relative judgements require larger numbers of judges.

It has been contended by researchers that relative, comparative judgements are highly reliable, more so than absolute, analytical judgements (see Jones & Alcock, 2012, 2014; Laming, 2004; Pollitt, 2012b).

They argued that comparative judgement, using calibrated exemplars, were successfully used as a highly reliable method to validate results from large-scale testing programs without the extensive assessor training and moderation processes that were required for absolute analytical judgements.

Absolute judgements, analytical traditional marking/scoring, refers to the allocation of marks/score points or a grade (Gill & Bramley, 2013; Pollitt, 2012a).

Overall, the study demonstrated the feasibility of using Rasch measurement with analytical marking and comparative judgements for the digital assessment of performance as a reliable and valid alternative to paper-based high-stakes examinations.

Assessors accessed these files using online scoring tools to facilitate analytical marking and comparative judgement.

In the third study, which began in 2011 and was completed in 2014 (Newhouse & Tarricone, 2014) the researchers sought to investigate the efficacy of digitisation for online analytical marking and comparative judgement methods by building on Dillon and Brown's (2006) use of e-portfolios.

Many researchers have also investigated the effectiveness of, and correlation between, absolute analytical marking and relative comparative judgements.

The researchers found that the comparative judgement was highly reliable, consistent across judges and the judgements correlated with the analytical marking testing data.

Pollitt (2012b) has consistently argued that comparative judgment can be conducted at a comparable or lower cost to analytical, traditional marking and that comparative judgement provides consistently high reliability.

Pollitt posited that in Kimbell et al.'s (2009) study the high reliability coefficient of 0.96 generated by 28 judges assessing 352 e-portfolios with 3067 judgements was higher than any analytical marking system could achieve.