Not only do we need to investigate issues of score comparability across different task paths but also across subpopulations.
Traditionalists like myself would concur with Hans that there is "more to batting than the issue of scoring runs", and that it is "a singular opportunity to face down, by dint of effort and skill and self-mastery, the variable world".
In language testing/assessment studies, the issue of scoring as a subjective assessment of spoken language (Davis, 2016; Sato, 2011) has been raised, and there seem to be two important factors that may influence the performance of our assessors; their scoring training and the so-called halo effect (Throndike 1920).
In addition to the feasibility issues surrounding the coding of large amounts of facial expression data, there is the issue of scoring these facial expression codes.
This suggests that the GO-universal metric is possibly an appropriate solution to the issue of scoring term specificity in the GO DAG.
The experimental evaluation of different approaches based on different term information content models paves the way towards a solution to the issue of scoring a term's specificity in the GO DAG.
Given the observation that tri-dimensional models offered a similar fit to the data as bi-dimensional models, the issue of scoring the instrument as a tri-dimensional instrument is worthy of discussion.
Furthermore, as enhancing any GO measures should start from the conception of GO term IC, the GO-universal metric, which includes parent and child information in its conception, is possibly a route toward the solution to the issue of scoring a term's specificity in the GO DAG.
As the fundamental measure in the GO-DAG is the term IC, a plausible solution to the issue of scoring a term's specificity is thus that the IC should consider the term's parents and children information in its conception.
These issues are comparison of score changes with change of an external criterion using correlations and the judgement of traditional methods as inappropriate.
That is, they do not address the issue of what score an individual might obtain on another occasion, or on a set of alternative, parallel items, but simply provide interval estimates for the percentage of the normative population who would score below the score obtained by the individual [ 26].
