Rating Scales Derived from Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores.

By Carolyn E. Turner, J. Upshur. 2002

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Towards Defining a Valid Assessment Criterion of Pronunciation Proficiency in Non-Native English-Speaking Graduate Students (2008, background): “What is novel about this measure of intelligibility is its focus on the word level, a locus of pronunciation difficulties for many NNSs (Field, 2005), and the relative ease with which it can be administered (cf. Turner & Upshur, 2002).”
Validity argument for assessing L2 pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods (2015, methodology): “Regarding this challenge, the performance data-driven approach to developing rating criteria holds analytical insights (Fulcher, 1996; Fulcher, Davidson, & Kemp, 2011; Turner & Upshur, 2002; Upshur & Turner, 1999).”
Diagnostic Writing Assessment: The Development and Validation of a Rating Scale (2009, background): “The band levels have also been criticized for often being interdependent (and therefore not criterion-referenced) (Turner & Upshur, 2002; Upshur & Turner, 1995) and for using relative wording as well as adjectives and intensifiers to differentiate between levels (Mickan, 2003).”
Effective rating scale development for speaking tests: Performance decision trees (2011, methodology): “Another performance data-based method is the empirically derived, binarychoice, boundary definition scales (EBBs) of Upshur and Turner (1995; 1999), Turner (2000) and Turner and Upshur (2002).”