Sentence examples for levels of descriptor from inspiring English sources
Table 7 summarizes discrepancies between participants' ratings and the different levels of descriptor.
The Knowledge and Skills framework, of which core dimensions are considered in Table 5 is further expanded in table Additional file 1: Appendix 7 to detail 29 skill dimensions each with four levels of descriptor.
What data is available on the reliability and levels of descriptors?
Four levels of descriptors were given for each category, with scores of 4, 3, 2, or 1 possible, depending on the level of success in that area.
Common sense or teaching experience would tell us that "can write letters/compositions commenting on the correspondent's news and views (No. 15)" would be relatively easier than "can convey information and ideas on abstract as well as concrete topics (No. 4)." As the original levels of descriptors seem to be a bit problematic, it is no wonder that they have swapped places in our data.
Then, we used survey methods to determine the relevance of the initial descriptors (stage 2) and the levels of the descriptors.
Genetic correlations in same traits between adjacent levels of herd descriptors were close to 1, but declined for descriptor levels in greater distance.
In fact, the results of the study showed considerable disagreement among the 22 teachers as to the levels of the descriptors (B1, B1+ and B2, or CSE5 to CSE8).
In Stage 4, small-scale interviews were conducted with eight university teachers for their opinions about the difficulty levels of the descriptors in order to enable the finalisation of "the writing ability scale profiling what students can do at different levels of proficiency".
Here, the logit value can be understood as the difficulty (level) of a descriptor, i.e., a larger logit value corresponds to a higher level of ability.
Predicted mean severity levels (and 95% CI) for different combinations of Likert scale levels of the three descriptors are shown in table 7. Relationships between actual mean overall assessments of severity (VAS) and means predicted by the model are shown in figure 4. When individual assessments were compared with predicted values, the pR was 0.78.
