Analytic Versus Holistic Scoring of Science Performance Tasks

Abstract

We conducted 2 studies to investigate interreader consistency, score reliability, and reader time requirements of 3 hands-on science performance tasks. One study involved scoring the responses of students in Grades 5, 8, and 10 on 3 dimensions ("curriculum standards") of performance. The other study computed scores for each of the 3 parts of the Grade 5 and 8 tasks. Both studies used analytic and holistic scoring rubrics to grade responses but differed in the characteristics of these rubrics. Analytic scoring took much longer but led to higher interreader consistency. Nevertheless, when averaged over all the questions in a task, a student's holistic score was just as reliable as that student's analytic score. There was a very high correlation between analytic and holistic scores after they were disattenuated for inconsistencies among readers. Using 2 readers per answer does not appear to be a cost-effective means for increasing the reliability of task scores.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 54 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.