↓ Skip to main content

Identifying low test-taking effort during low-stakes tests with the new Test-taking Effort Short Scale (TESS) – development and psychometrics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying low test-taking effort during low-stakes tests with the new Test-taking Effort Short Scale (TESS) – development and psychometrics
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1196-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns, Martina Kadmon, Claudia Kiessling, Yassin Karay, Margarita Gestmann, Juliane E. Kämmer

Abstract

Low-stakes tests are becoming increasingly important in international assessments of educational progress, and the validity of these results is essential especially as these results are often used for benchmarking. Test scores in these tests not only mirror students' ability but also depend on their test-taking effort. One way to obtain more valid scores from participating samples is to identify test-takers with low test-taking effort and to exclude them from further analyses. Self-assessment is a convenient and quick way of measuring test-taking effort. We present the newly developed Test-taking Effort Short Scale (TESS), which comprises three items measuring attainment value/intrinsic value, utility value, and perceived benefits, respectively. In a multicenter validation study with N = 1837 medical students sitting a low-stakes progress test we analyzed item and test statistics including construct and external validity. TESS showed very good psychometric properties. We propose an approach using stanine norms to determine a cutoff value for identifying participants with low test-taking effort. With just three items, TESS is shorter than most established self-assessment scales; it is thus suited for administration after low-stakes progress testing. However, further studies are necessary to establish its suitability for routine usage in assessment outside progress testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 34%
Psychology 4 9%
Engineering 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,948,821
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,636
of 3,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,588
of 327,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#77
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.