2015
DOI: 10.1002/ets2.12067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Motivation in Low‐Stakes Assessments

Abstract: There is a growing concern that when scores from low‐stakes assessments are reported without considering student motivation as a construct of interest, biased conclusions about how much students know will result. Low motivation is a problem particularly relevant to low‐stakes testing scenarios, which may be low stakes for the test taker but have considerable consequences for teachers, school districts, or educational and governmental institutions. The current review addresses the impact of motivation on assess… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
66
0
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
1
66
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This section outlines how disengaged responses can occur for various reasons at the person level, the item level, or the interaction of both (Finn 2015). The term test-taking engagement already suggests that performance on a test depends not only on ability but also on motivational and emotional aspects (Asseburg and Frey 2013).…”
Section: Explaining Differences In Test-taking Engagementmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This section outlines how disengaged responses can occur for various reasons at the person level, the item level, or the interaction of both (Finn 2015). The term test-taking engagement already suggests that performance on a test depends not only on ability but also on motivational and emotional aspects (Asseburg and Frey 2013).…”
Section: Explaining Differences In Test-taking Engagementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a recent review, Finn (2015) discussed several person-level predictors of low testtaking motivation. Test-takers who were less compliant, that is, less motivated, to take the test tended to show higher levels of reactance (Brown and Finney 2011).…”
Section: Person Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These include assessing examinee motivation levels, particularly for low stakes tests [132][133][134], evaluating strategy use, for example by differences in response times for subgroups employing different problem solving strategies [130,135], or even the same individual employing different strategies at different points in the test [136], and evaluating cultural differences in pacing and time management during test taking [137]. Other applications include detecting cheating [97], assembling parallel forms [138], and item selection in adaptive testing [139,140], which may be particularly important for ensuring score comparability 16 across sets of items that might be similar in difficulty but differ in their time intensity [142,143].…”
Section: Other Uses Of Response Timementioning
confidence: 99%