[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-621070-105":59,"doc-detail-621070-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","e-marking-development-review-validity-and-reliability","E-marking Development Review - Validity and Reliability","","A review examines the development of e-marking, focusing on technology suppliers and software solutions that drive adoption across UK awarding bodies such as AQA. It analyzes how e-marking—online marking of extracts from scanned scripts—differs from conventional marking, including single-item versus whole-script approaches and the allocation of items to experts, generalists, or automatic marking. The review highlights potential effects on examiner responses and marks, and identifies key issues for validity and reliability, with implications investigated further beyond cost and operational benefits.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/e-marking-development-review-validity-and-reliability/621070/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/e-marking-development-review-validity-and-reliability/621070.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Sarah ","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is e-marking in this review and how does it differ from conventional marking?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"E-marking is hybrid online marking where examiners judge extracts from scanned scripts on computer screens. It differs from conventional marking by using single items rather than whole scripts and by allocating some items to experts or generalists and others to automatic marking.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why are validity and reliability central to assessing e-marking changes?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A valid assessment must also be reliable, and modifying tests for e-marking can endanger validity. The review considers whether changes driven by technology—such as shifts toward more automatically or clerically marked items—affect validity and reliability.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What validity questions does the review investigate?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The review asks whether assessment schemes are shaped by what technology can offer at the expense of validity, whether validity is retained at question or part-question level rather than whole-paper level, and whether validity is retained when marking is done by experts/generalists or by computer depending on marking complexity.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},621070,1793042236,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":41,"preview_page_count":4},962085320529,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","The development of e-marking is reviewed under the headings of the different technology suppliers that are driving e-marking developments forward through their software solutions. Thereview covers the experience of AQA and other UK awarding bodies, and considers the various aspects of e-marking, a hybrid in which examiners carry out on-line marking of extracts from scanned scripts, which make it different from conventional marking. These include marking single items rather than whole scripts and allocating some items for marking by experts or generalists and others for ëautomaticí marking. Such differences might conceivably influence the examinerís response to the task, and possibly the marks awarded also. Although any impact on the assessment is seen as much less significant than might be found in developments involving on-line testing and full computer marking, a few issues are identified for the validity and reliability of the assessments delivered with e-marking which might be investigated further.  \n1 Background  \n1.1 Consideration of the potential of e-marking of candidatesí responses in scanned or imaged form on computer screens, rather than in their original paper format, has tended to focus on structural and administrative aspects, understandably given concerns about the costs of examining and escalating demands on examiner recruitment. There are numerous practical questions in moving to more technologically driven systems. AQAís first two live operations1 using Computer Marking from Image (CMI+) provided by DRS Data and Research Services plc have been initiated early in 2005 ahead of the Summer 2005 series when it is planned to e-mark 28 GCSE examination components or modules. What is less frequently considered in moving forward with these developments is the impact on examining of performing the e-marking task in place of traditional paper-based methods.  \n1.2 At its meeting on 1 July 2004, the AQA Council considered a paper on ìThe Business Case for E-marking and E-mark captureî . The main focus of the paper was to summarise the different initiatives in this area, discuss their operational benefits and present an overview of the costs involved, with more detailed cost/benefit analyses being undertaken by the Finance Department in conjunction with the Business Development Department and DRS.  \n1 Both involve module tests: the January 2005 French Specification B Module 1 Listening test and the March Mathematics Specification B Module 3 Foundation Tier test.  \n1.3 Although the paper focused on operational and financial aspects, there was also some discussion about the impact of introducing these technologies, especially on-line marking (e-marking), on the characteristics of the assessments made. A discussion arose not just about how CMI+ could most easily be implemented by AQA, but what the assessment implications were of so doing. Initial discussions with the New Technology Co-ordinator indicated that, for the next few years at least, there would be minimal design (and hence cost) implications for conventional question paper design. There would, however, be much to gain in terms of reduced examiner fees - plus improvements in reliability and efficiency-a view shared by AQAís technology partner DRS.  \n1.4 The Council suggested that a literature review be conducted on the assessment/educational implications, of introducing e-marking, especially with respect to validity, lest they seriously undermine and jeopardise the quality of the assessments made by the AQA, and the public confidence they currently demand.  \n1.5 This review is concerned with e-marking, where human markers judge candidatesí work displayed on a computer, particularly as it is developing through CMI+ . It is not concerned with e-capture of marks or the broader area of e-assessment (also known as computer based assessment (CBA) and computer assisted assessment (CAA), and comprehensively reviewed by Ridgway and McCusker (2004)) . The former (e-capture), ","cbCait2vWIR2BnjB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait2vWIR2BnjB","pdf",617201,12,"English","# Background\n## Consideration of e-marking for scanned responses\n## AQA Council business case review\n## Operational focus versus assessment impact\n## Recommendation for literature review\n## Scope: e-marking and e-assessment distinction\n# Introduction to the review\n## Validity and reliability prerequisites\n## Review questions on validity\n## Review questions on reliability","[{\"question\":\"What is e-marking in this review and how does it differ from conventional marking?\",\"answer\":\"E-marking is hybrid online marking where examiners judge extracts from scanned scripts on computer screens. It differs from conventional marking by using single items rather than whole scripts and by allocating some items to experts or generalists and others to automatic marking.\"},{\"question\":\"Why are validity and reliability central to assessing e-marking changes?\",\"answer\":\"A valid assessment must also be reliable, and modifying tests for e-marking can endanger validity. The review considers whether changes driven by technology—such as shifts toward more automatically or clerically marked items—affect validity and reliability.\"},{\"question\":\"What validity questions does the review investigate?\",\"answer\":\"The review asks whether assessment schemes are shaped by what technology can offer at the expense of validity, whether validity is retained at question or part-question level rather than whole-paper level, and whether validity is retained when marking is done by experts/generalists or by computer depending on marking complexity.\"}]","E-marking Development Review - Validity and Reliability | PDF",1792464923]