Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability.
By Barbara M. Moskal, J. Leydens. 2000
562 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Computer Science Applications, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8adcdb4e65ade45205744693c0f254e307c41261
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Science Applications
- Heidi L. Andrade
- A. Jonsson
- Y. M. Reddy
- Kathleen M. Carley
- Tore Opsahl
- Ernesto Panadero
- Pietro Panzarasa
- Barbara M. Moskal
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
- A. Jonsson
- Ernesto Panadero
- Heidi L. Andrade
- Gil Reynders
- J. Lantz
- Gunilla Svingby
- Barbara M. Moskal
- Renée S. Cole
In Education
- Ernesto Panadero
- A. Jonsson
- Heidi L. Andrade
- Gil Reynders
- J. Lantz
- Renée S. Cole
- Courtney Stanford
- Suzanne Ruder
Citations in the corpus
- The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity, and educational consequences (2007, background): “The more consistent the scores are over different raters and occasions, the more reliable the assessment is thought to be (Moskal & Leydens, 2000).”
- The Use of Scoring Rubrics for Formative Assessment Purposes Revisited: A Review. (2013, background): “…to validly assess multi-dimensional performances (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Halonen et al., 2003) and rubrics have been the primary choice for many test developers as they allow for, at least moderately, reliable assessment of complex performances (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007; Moskal & Leydens, 2000).”
- Impact of license choice on Open Source Software development activity (2009, background): “Moskal and Leydens (2000) stated that rubrics respond to concerns of subjectivity and unfairness by formalizing the criteria for scoring a student product or performance.”
- A review of rubric use in higher education (2010, background): “This summary is framed in terms of the four questions that motivated the review.”
- Teaching With Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (2005, background): ““Alternative” or “authentic” assessments are not exempt from the demands of validity, reliability, and equity ( Moskal and Leydens 2000 ).”
- A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability (2004, unknown): “One strategy for reducing subjectivity is to develop scoring rubrics (Mertler, 2001; Moskal & Leydens, 2000; Tierney & Simon, 2004).”
- Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses (2020, background): “Content validity is the degree to which the rubrics cover relevant aspects of each process skill (Moskal & Leydens, 2000).”
- An Assessment of Reliability and Validity of a Rubric for Grading APA-Style Introductions (2009, background): “Although reliability and validity have been noted as issues of concern in rubric development (Moskal & Leydens, 2000; Thaler, Kazemi, & Huscher, 2009), the reliability and validity of grading rubrics seldom have been assessed, most likely due to the effort and time commitment that is required to do…”
- Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics (2003, background): “The final recommendation is consistent with prior articles that concern the development of scoring rubrics (Brualdi, 1998; Moskal & Leydens, 2000).”