An Application of “WrightMap” Package in R Program for Investigate Cutoff Score and Description
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Cutoff score setting based on Benjamin Drake Wright's method is a theory that relies on Rasch model in the Item Response Theory (IRT) and involves setting cutoff scores on Constructmap assessments. Afterward, the ability is projected onto a Wrightmap, along with description. Information from this Wrightmap is vital as it allows users to assess various aspects, such as student development pathways, personal classifications for entry into programs in various dimensions. Following this concept, Mark Wilson and colleagues collaborated to develop software called "ConQuest," a program developed at the Australian Council for Educational Research. This software set cutoff scores and project ability, making the assessment results meaningful and widely applicable. However, amid the continuous development of computational science and data science, various software packages have been developed to process the concept of Wrightmap. In addition to ConQuest, which has been continually developed until 2020, other academics have developed command sets, such as "WrightMap" for the R programming in 2022. Furthermore, the Australian Council for Educational Research has developed a command set called "Conquestr" for the R programming in 2023. It can be observed that there is a continuous trend of software development in the field, with a tendency to develop software that requires programming languages with computer code. R is a popular programming language with computer code in today's context. Therefore, this academic article aims to explain the essential concept of Wrightmap, including their history, theoretical principles, significance, and characteristics. It will also demonstrate the usage of the 'WrightMap' command set and present a method for using software to set cutoff scores, project Wrightmap in both unidimensional and multidimensional measurement model, and provide a sample of data analysis and reporting
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ข้อความและบทความในวารสารการวัด ประเมินผล สถิติ และการวิจัยทางสังคมศาสตร์ เป็นแนวคิดของผู้เขียน มิใช่ความคิดเห็นของกองบรรณาธิการวารสาร จึงมิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของวารสารการวัด ประเมินผล สถิติ และการวิจัยทางสังคมศาสตร์ บทความในวารสารต้องไม่เคยตีพิมพ์ที่ใดมาก่อน และสงวนสิทธิ์ตามกฎหมายไทย การจะนำไปเผยแพร่ ต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจากกองบรรณาธิการ
References
ถิรายุ อินทร์แปลง. (2565). การพัฒนาระบบการทดสอบโดยใช้คอมพิวเตอร์เพื่อการประเมินสมรรถนะการประเมินชั้นเรียนของครู : การประยุกต์ใช้ทฤษฎีการตอบสนองข้อสอบแบบพหุมิติ. [วิทยานิพนธ์ระดับดุษฎีบัณฑิต]. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: ดundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2013). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer Science & Business Media.
Buckendahl, C. W., Smith, R. W., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and Bookmark standard setting methods. Journal of Educational measurement, 39(3), 253-263.
Fisher, W. P., & Wilson, M. (2015). Building a productive trading zone in educational assessment research and practice. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigacion Educacional Latinoamericana, 52(2), 55-78.
Jabrayilov, R., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2016). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in individual change assessment. Applied psychological measurement, 40(8), 559-572.
Kennedy, C. A., Wilson, M. R., Draney, K., Tutunciyan, S., & Vorp, R. (2008). ConstructMap v4. 4.0 Quick Start Guide. BEAR Center, Berkley.
Mari, L., & Wilson, M. (2014). An introduction to the Rasch measurement approach for metrologists. Measurement, 51, 315-327.
Park, J., Ahn, D. S., Yim, M. K., & Lee, J. (2018). Comparison of standard-setting methods for the Korean radiological technologist licensing examination: Angoff, Ebel, bookmark, and Hofstee. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 15.
Wilson, M. (2023). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Taylor & Francis.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA press.
Yoon Yoon, S., Evans, M. G., & Strobel, J. (2014). Validation of the teaching engineering self‐efficacy scale for K‐12 teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 463-485.
