XD

[wtfumean]

Based on the analysis of the scale, we recommend removing item 49 as it was found to be problematic. Combining categories 0 and 1 is suggested to avoid confusion among respondents. Removing individuals with evidence of misfit also improves the scale's functioning. The scale demonstrates good reliability, with most items functioning well and demonstrating good separation and discrimination between persons. The category analysis shows that scoring categories are used effectively, but the "0" category label should be eliminated by combining it with the "1" category.

suggest final recommendations:

• Reliability Analysis:
• The given table contains the results of reliability analysis. It includes the mean score, standard deviation (P.SD and S.SD), maximum and minimum scores, and the Person reliability (.68) based on the item responses of 330 measured (non-extreme) persons. The Person reliability indicates the extent to which the items used to measure the construct are reliable.
  
  
• The spread of items is quite large: on average, the reliability is 1 and this is good, but there is a maximum – items with low reliability (3.81) and this means underfit and there is a minimum of 0.02 and this means overfit.
• 
  
• Descriptive Analysis:
• The table also provides descriptive statistics for the total score, count, measure, and standard error (SEM) for each item. It also includes the mean square (MNSQ) and standard deviation (ZSTD) for both the INFIT and OUTFIT models. The SEM gives an indication of the precision of the mean estimate. The MNSQ and ZSTD are measures of the deviation of the observed data from the expected data under the model.
• 
  
• The table also shows the maximum and minimum scores in the data, as well as the maximum extreme score (20) and the percentage of persons who obtained it (5.7%). The table also includes the real root mean square error (RMSE), model RMSE, true SD, and separation for the model, which are measures of how well the model fits the data.
• 
  
• Separation in this context refers to the extent to which the questionnaire can distinguish between different levels of the construct being measured. A higher separation value indicates a greater ability of the questionnaire to differentiate between groups of persons with different levels of the construct. The table shows that the model has a separation value of 1.74, indicating that the questionnaire can discriminate fairly well between different levels of the construct.
• 
  
• Overall, the table provides a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the item responses of 330 measured persons and the reliability of the construct measured by the items.
• 
  

• Mean	16.1
  Standard Error of the Mean (SEM)	.2
  Person Standard Deviation (P.SD)	4.4
  Standard Deviation of the Item (S.SD)	4.4
  Maximum Value	27.0
  Minimum Value	4.0

  • 
    
  • Dimensionality analysis (Table 23)
• The dimensionality analysis shows that the total raw variance in the observations is 11.8857 Eigenvalue units, and this accounts for 100% of the variance. Of this, 4.8857 Eigenvalue units (41.1%) is explained by measures, which can be further broken down into 1.7361 Eigenvalue units (14.6%) explained by persons and 3.1496 Eigenvalue units (26.5%) explained by items. The remaining raw variance (7.0000 Eigenvalue units, 58.9%) is unexplained.
  The standardized residual variance scree plot and variance component scree plot both show a steep drop-off in variance explained after the second component. This suggests that a two-dimensional solution may be appropriate for the data.
  
  The approximate relationships between person measures show that there are some negative correlations between clusters 1-3 and positive correlations between clusters 2-3 in the first contrast. In the second contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-2 and 2-3. In the third contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-2 and negative correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3. In the fourth contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3 and a weaker positive correlation between clusters 1-2. In the fifth contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3 and a weaker positive correlation between clusters 1-2.
  Item 49 stands out strongly. Task 49 goes against the points that go in this school. Perhaps this item needs to be recoded. You should also pay attention to other items whose correlation (positive) is less than 0.02. This means that they measure the latent trait.
  
  Overall, these results suggest that the questionnaire may have two underlying dimensions, and the clusters of items may be related to these dimensions. However, further analysis would be needed to confirm this and fully explore the structure of the data.
  • 
    
  • Item continuum (Item Person (Thresholds) Map) (Table 12 or 16)
• How evenly the items are distributed in accordance with the difficulty and abilities of the
  
  The initial item bank of 7 items was reviewed by an expert panel. The expert panel included two master degree students. The participants was asked to grade items (0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree 2 = somewhat Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree) according to their relevance in terms of the stress. A goal of study is to analyze and improve current rating stress scale.
  These two-step difficulty levels, or “thresholds” needed to cross from one category to the next, are assumed to be consistent across items. The analysis included 350 complete surveys.
  In Table 12.2, the full item names are shown located at their calibrations, along with the person distribution. On the graph, M marker is tended to harder meaningful construct. It means that Items that are explicitly ethical in nature were theorized and subsequently designed to be easier to answer, whereas items that are less-clearly ethical in nature were theorized and designed to be more difficult to answer correctly. [Miliken].
  We make a hypothesis that people are easier to answer with negative relation to the answers and combine scales “strongly disagree” and “disagree”. After hypothesis examination, we conclude that people located at lower levels of estimated ethical awareness should be able to answer easier items. The “M” represents the mean logit; the “M” on the left side of the vertical axis is the mean for the person ability and on the right is the mean for item difficulty (constrained to be zero for statistical estimation purposes).
  Finally, the variable map demonstrates an excellent progression of persons (on the left side). Most scorers fall towards the upper side of the scale, with a spread of persons towards both tails. This finding indicates that most test takers had a low-level range of stress awareness, with a higher number of people falling in the ranges.
  
  Andrich threshold (Fk) is approximately the log-ratio of the frequency of adjacent categories. When category frequency is low, then the Andrich threshold is poorly estimated and unstable. This is useful for inference and for confirming the construct validity of the rating scale. Most users of your findings will assume this is true. This is true when the observed values of the average measures for each category approximate their expected values. For a 5 rating scale we see a monotonous increase of logit from one to other answer. This scale do not show true value due to low observed average measure that is .40, .60 logits. As a solution we propose to combine categories “0” and “1”.
  Model Fit Analysis (Table 10 or 14)
  To assess the “fit” between observed and expected values, the socalled INFIT and OUTFIT statistics produced by Winsteps, for both persons and items were evaluated. Misfit analyses assess person-by-item residuals, or the differences between the observed and expected responses. Person-level fit statistics can indicate potential outliers and item-level fit statistics provide information about how well items are functioning. A mean squared residual (MSNQ) of 1.5 was used to identify problematic items. One item – 49 had both INFIT and MNSQ values of >1.5; this suggests that all items are not functioning well. We suggest omitting item 49 to reduce a disturbance of the scale. After cancellation of the item, all items are functioning well MNSQ values of >1.5.
  The final analysis has achieved an item separation of 6.46 (compared with a suggested goal >3) and item reliability of 0.98 (goal >0.9). This indicates sufficient item separation (meaning there are statistically discernable levels of items) and it reinforces confidence in the construct validity of the instrument, meaning the quantitative results match the hierarchical construct continuum developed in the initial item development phases.
  
  In terms of “person fit,” the typical pattern observed in statistically unusual responses were high scorers who unexpectedly did not endorse an item. This resulted in large residuals when individuals, for example selected “disagree” when “agree” was expected. Thus, although there were individuals with some evidence of misfit, there appear to be justification for removing them from the final analysis.
  Finally, the achieved person separation is 1.73 (goal >2), with a reliability of .73 (goal >0.8). This indicates that overall the scale is able to differentiate between low and high performers.
  Category analysis (scale categories’ functioning) (Table 3.2)
  Category characteristic curves (CCC’s) indicate how well the instrument’s scoring categories are being used.
  
  The curves in this table cross at Andrich thresholds, which represent a 50% probability of a response being in one category or the next. In other words, a high scorer has a higher probability of scoring a 1 (disagree) on an easy item. A low scorer has a higher probability of scoring a 4 (Agree) on a difficult item. The CCC’s in table show excellent use of the scoring categories. These curves demonstrate ordered scoring thresholds (from 1->4) and there is approximately a logit of progression between thresholds. All other categories 2 and 3 are not useful; their probability of responses are below .4 , cross at equal thresholds and have even spacing in between.
  We model “0” category label that is indicated by a mean-square of INFIT 2.51. It shows that this category has been used in contexts in which the expected category is far different – respondents

 

[Garant [BOT]]

suggest final recommendations:

• Reliability Analysis:
• The given table contains the results of reliability analysis. It includes the mean score, standard deviation (P.SD and S.SD), maximum and minimum scores, and the Person reliability (.68) based on the item responses of 330 measured (non-extreme) persons. The Person reliability indicates the extent to which the items used to measure the construct are reliable.
  
  
• The spread of items is quite large: on average, the reliability is 1 and this is good, but there is a maximum – items with low reliability (3.81) and this means underfit and there is a minimum of 0.02 and this means overfit.
• 
  
• Descriptive Analysis:
• The table also provides descriptive statistics for the total score, count, measure, and standard error (SEM) for each item. It also includes the mean square (MNSQ) and standard deviation (ZSTD) for both the INFIT and OUTFIT models. The SEM gives an indication of the precision of the mean estimate. The MNSQ and ZSTD are measures of the deviation of the observed data from the expected data under the model.
• 
  
• The table also shows the maximum and minimum scores in the data, as well as the maximum extreme score (20) and the percentage of persons who obtained it (5.7%). The table also includes the real root mean square error (RMSE), model RMSE, true SD, and separation for the model, which are measures of how well the model fits the data.
• 
  
• Separation in this context refers to the extent to which the questionnaire can distinguish between different levels of the construct being measured. A higher separation value indicates a greater ability of the questionnaire to differentiate between groups of persons with different levels of the construct. The table shows that the model has a separation value of 1.74, indicating that the questionnaire can discriminate fairly well between different levels of the construct.
• 
  
• Overall, the table provides a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the item responses of 330 measured persons and the reliability of the construct measured by the items.
• 
  

• Mean	16.1
  Standard Error of the Mean (SEM)	.2
  Person Standard Deviation (P.SD)	4.4
  Standard Deviation of the Item (S.SD)	4.4
  Maximum Value	27.0
  Minimum Value	4.0

  • 
    
  • Dimensionality analysis (Table 23)
• The dimensionality analysis shows that the total raw variance in the observations is 11.8857 Eigenvalue units, and this accounts for 100% of the variance. Of this, 4.8857 Eigenvalue units (41.1%) is explained by measures, which can be further broken down into 1.7361 Eigenvalue units (14.6%) explained by persons and 3.1496 Eigenvalue units (26.5%) explained by items. The remaining raw variance (7.0000 Eigenvalue units, 58.9%) is unexplained.
  The standardized residual variance scree plot and variance component scree plot both show a steep drop-off in variance explained after the second component. This suggests that a two-dimensional solution may be appropriate for the data.
  
  The approximate relationships between person measures show that there are some negative correlations between clusters 1-3 and positive correlations between clusters 2-3 in the first contrast. In the second contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-2 and 2-3. In the third contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-2 and negative correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3. In the fourth contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3 and a weaker positive correlation between clusters 1-2. In the fifth contrast, there are positive correlations between clusters 1-3 and 2-3 and a weaker positive correlation between clusters 1-2.
  Item 49 stands out strongly. Task 49 goes against the points that go in this school. Perhaps this item needs to be recoded. You should also pay attention to other items whose correlation (positive) is less than 0.02. This means that they measure the latent trait.
  
  Overall, these results suggest that the questionnaire may have two underlying dimensions, and the clusters of items may be related to these dimensions. However, further analysis would be needed to confirm this and fully explore the structure of the data.
  • 
    
  • Item continuum (Item Person (Thresholds) Map) (Table 12 or 16)
• How evenly the items are distributed in accordance with the difficulty and abilities of the
  
  The initial item bank of 7 items was reviewed by an expert panel. The expert panel included two master degree students. The participants was asked to grade items (0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree 2 = somewhat Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree) according to their relevance in terms of the stress. A goal of study is to analyze and improve current rating stress scale.
  These two-step difficulty levels, or “thresholds” needed to cross from one category to the next, are assumed to be consistent across items. The analysis included 350 complete surveys.
  In Table 12.2, the full item names are shown located at their calibrations, along with the person distribution. On the graph, M marker is tended to harder meaningful construct. It means that Items that are explicitly ethical in nature were theorized and subsequently designed to be easier to answer, whereas items that are less-clearly ethical in nature were theorized and designed to be more difficult to answer correctly. [Miliken].
  We make a hypothesis that people are easier to answer with negative relation to the answers and combine scales “strongly disagree” and “disagree”. After hypothesis examination, we conclude that people located at lower levels of estimated ethical awareness should be able to answer easier items. The “M” represents the mean logit; the “M” on the left side of the vertical axis is the mean for the person ability and on the right is the mean for item difficulty (constrained to be zero for statistical estimation purposes).
  Finally, the variable map demonstrates an excellent progression of persons (on the left side). Most scorers fall towards the upper side of the scale, with a spread of persons towards both tails. This finding indicates that most test takers had a low-level range of stress awareness, with a higher number of people falling in the ranges.
  
  Andrich threshold (Fk) is approximately the log-ratio of the frequency of adjacent categories. When category frequency is low, then the Andrich threshold is poorly estimated and unstable. This is useful for inference and for confirming the construct validity of the rating scale. Most users of your findings will assume this is true. This is true when the observed values of the average measures for each category approximate their expected values. For a 5 rating scale we see a monotonous increase of logit from one to other answer. This scale do not show true value due to low observed average measure that is .40, .60 logits. As a solution we propose to combine categories “0” and “1”.
  Model Fit Analysis (Table 10 or 14)
  To assess the “fit” between observed and expected values, the socalled INFIT and OUTFIT statistics produced by Winsteps, for both persons and items were evaluated. Misfit analyses assess person-by-item residuals, or the differences between the observed and expected responses. Person-level fit statistics can indicate potential outliers and item-level fit statistics provide information about how well items are functioning. A mean squared residual (MSNQ) of 1.5 was used to identify problematic items. One item – 49 had both INFIT and MNSQ values of >1.5; this suggests that all items are not functioning well. We suggest omitting item 49 to reduce a disturbance of the scale. After cancellation of the item, all items are functioning well MNSQ values of >1.5.
  The final analysis has achieved an item separation of 6.46 (compared with a suggested goal >3) and item reliability of 0.98 (goal >0.9). This indicates sufficient item separation (meaning there are statistically discernable levels of items) and it reinforces confidence in the construct validity of the instrument, meaning the quantitative results match the hierarchical construct continuum developed in the initial item development phases.
  
  In terms of “person fit,” the typical pattern observed in statistically unusual responses were high scorers who unexpectedly did not endorse an item. This resulted in large residuals when individuals, for example selected “disagree” when “agree” was expected. Thus, although there were individuals with some evidence of misfit, there appear to be justification for removing them from the final analysis.
  Finally, the achieved person separation is 1.73 (goal >2), with a reliability of .73 (goal >0.8). This indicates that overall the scale is able to differentiate between low and high performers.
  Category analysis (scale categories’ functioning) (Table 3.2)
  Category characteristic curves (CCC’s) indicate how well the instrument’s scoring categories are being used.
  
  The curves in this table cross at Andrich thresholds, which represent a 50% probability of a response being in one category or the next. In other words, a high scorer has a higher probability of scoring a 1 (disagree) on an easy item. A low scorer has a higher probability of scoring a 4 (Agree) on a difficult item. The CCC’s in table show excellent use of the scoring categories. These curves demonstrate ordered scoring thresholds (from 1->4) and there is approximately a logit of progression between thresholds. All other categories 2 and 3 are not useful; their probability of responses are below .4 , cross at equal thresholds and have even spacing in between.
  We model “0” category label that is indicated by a mean-square of INFIT 2.51. It shows that this category has been used in contexts in which the expected category is far different – respondents

are choosing this category when it is not appropriate, leading to confusion and inaccurate responses. To address this issue, we recommend combining categories 0 and 1 to avoid confusion among respondents. This will improve the functioning of the scale and facilitate more accurate responses.

Overall Recommendations:

• Remove item 49 from the questionnaire as it is problematic and disrupts the functioning of the scale.
• Combine categories 0 and 1 to avoid confusion among respondents and improve the functioning of the scoring system.
• Remove individuals with evidence of misfit to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results.
• Pay attention to other items whose correlation is less than 0.02 and consider recoding them to improve their measurement of the latent trait.
• Further analysis would be needed to confirm the presence of two underlying dimensions in the questionnaire and fully explore the structure of the data.
• Use the achieved item and person separation and reliability values to determine the scale's ability to differentiate between low and high performers.
• Consider improving the variable map for the questionnaire by making items that are less-clearly ethical in nature more difficult to answer correctly.
• Use the category analysis to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the scoring categories, and consider adjusting the categories if necessary to improve the functioning of the scale.

 

[wtfumean]

are choosing this category when it is not appropriate, leading to confusion and inaccurate responses. To address this issue, we recommend combining categories 0 and 1 to avoid confusion among respondents. This will improve the functioning of the scale and facilitate more accurate responses.

Overall Recommendations:

• Remove item 49 from the questionnaire as it is problematic and disrupts the functioning of the scale.
• Combine categories 0 and 1 to avoid confusion among respondents and improve the functioning of the scoring system.
• Remove individuals with evidence of misfit to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results.
• Pay attention to other items whose correlation is less than 0.02 and consider recoding them to improve their measurement of the latent trait.
• Further analysis would be needed to confirm the presence of two underlying dimensions in the questionnaire and fully explore the structure of the data.
• Use the achieved item and person separation and reliability values to determine the scale's ability to differentiate between low and high performers.
• Consider improving the variable map for the questionnaire by making items that are less-clearly ethical in nature more difficult to answer correctly.
• Use the category analysis to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the scoring categories, and consider adjusting the categories if necessary to improve the functioning of the scale.

do my hometask on test devepopment:
Dear students, just a kind reminder that tomorrow we're going be discussing your rubrics and continue talking about sentitve information and ways for us to obtain such information reliably.

Each team presents:
1. Suggest why an analytic or a holistic rubric are the best scoring instrument in different cases. What cases can it be?
2. Choose a goal, explain why it should be measured by this type of item, develop the behaviour indicators that must be measured by the item.
3. Develop an open ended item and an instruction for it.
4. Develop a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type.

 

[Garant [BOT]]

do my hometask on test devepopment:
Dear students, just a kind reminder that tomorrow we're going be discussing your rubrics and continue talking about sentitve information and ways for us to obtain such information reliably.

Each team presents:
1. Suggest why an analytic or a holistic rubric are the best scoring instrument in different cases. What cases can it be?
2. Choose a goal, explain why it should be measured by this type of item, develop the behaviour indicators that must be measured by the item.
3. Develop an open ended item and an instruction for it.
4. Develop a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type.

1. An analytic rubric may be the best scoring instrument when grading more complex assignments that require an understanding of multiple skill areas. For example, an essay may require grading based on grammar, content, and organization, so using an analytic rubric that scores each area separately can provide a more comprehensive grading scale. On the other hand, a holistic rubric may be best for grading more open-ended assignments that require a broader evaluation of the overall quality. For example, a painting or a musical performance can be evaluated with a holistic rubric that examines the overall aesthetic or impact.

2. Goal: Measure critical thinking skills in a problem-solving scenario. The behavior indicators that must be measured by the item include the ability to analyze a complex problem, evaluate multiple potential solutions, and select the most effective solution.

3. Open-ended item: Describe a time when you had to solve a difficult problem. What steps did you take, and how did you evaluate potential solutions?

Instruction: Please describe a specific instance when you were faced with a challenging problem. In your response, include the steps you took to solve the problem and how you evaluated potential solutions.

4. Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is an analytic rubric that scores different aspects of critical thinking skills. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Problem analysis (10 points): demonstrates the ability to thoroughly analyze the problem presented, including identifying relevant factors and potential challenges
• Solution evaluation (10 points): demonstrates the ability to evaluate multiple potential solutions in terms of effectiveness, feasibility, and potential consequences
• Solution selection (10 points): demonstrates the ability to select the most effective solution based on a careful evaluation of the options

The scoring rubric was chosen to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the critical thinking skills required to solve complex problems. The analytic rubric allows each aspect of critical thinking to be evaluated separately, providing a more detailed assessment of the student's skills.

 

[wtfumean]

1. An analytic rubric may be the best scoring instrument when grading more complex assignments that require an understanding of multiple skill areas. For example, an essay may require grading based on grammar, content, and organization, so using an analytic rubric that scores each area separately can provide a more comprehensive grading scale. On the other hand, a holistic rubric may be best for grading more open-ended assignments that require a broader evaluation of the overall quality. For example, a painting or a musical performance can be evaluated with a holistic rubric that examines the overall aesthetic or impact.

2. Goal: Measure critical thinking skills in a problem-solving scenario. The behavior indicators that must be measured by the item include the ability to analyze a complex problem, evaluate multiple potential solutions, and select the most effective solution.

3. Open-ended item: Describe a time when you had to solve a difficult problem. What steps did you take, and how did you evaluate potential solutions?

Instruction: Please describe a specific instance when you were faced with a challenging problem. In your response, include the steps you took to solve the problem and how you evaluated potential solutions.

4. Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is an analytic rubric that scores different aspects of critical thinking skills. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Problem analysis (10 points): demonstrates the ability to thoroughly analyze the problem presented, including identifying relevant factors and potential challenges
• Solution evaluation (10 points): demonstrates the ability to evaluate multiple potential solutions in terms of effectiveness, feasibility, and potential consequences
• Solution selection (10 points): demonstrates the ability to select the most effective solution based on a careful evaluation of the options

The scoring rubric was chosen to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the critical thinking skills required to solve complex problems. The analytic rubric allows each aspect of critical thinking to be evaluated separately, providing a more detailed assessment of the student's skills.

do my hometask on test devepopment:
Dear students, just a kind reminder that tomorrow we're going be discussing your rubrics and continue talking about sentitve information and ways for us to obtain such information reliably.

Each team presents:
1. Suggest why an analytic or a holistic rubric are the best scoring instrument in different cases. What cases can it be?
2. Choose a goal, explain why it should be measured by this type of item, develop the behaviour indicators that must be measured by the item. Our goal: Well-being of students at university
3. Develop 5 open ended items and an instructions for it.
4. Develop a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type.
More info for you:
Open-ended questions are broad and can be answered in detail (e.g. "What do you think about this product?"), while closed-ended questions are narrow in focus and usually answered with a single word or a pick from limited multiple-choice options (e.g. "Are you satisfied with this product?" → Yes/No/Mostly/Not quite).

Ask an open-ended question when you want to develop a better understanding of your students and their educational needs, get more context behind their actions, and/or investigate the reasons behind their lack of knowledge of different kind. Development rules:
A. This is an appropriate type of task to use for the intended objective.

B. The O-E (essay, etc.) question is designed to measure a higher-level objective (i.e., not low-level recall of factual knowledge).

C. The content of the essay question is correct.

D. The reading level of the essay question is appropriate for the students (and similarly unknown).

E. The essay question clearly indicates the type of response desired.

G. For restricted-response essay questions, the essay question presents a well-defined, focused, definite task. Main topics, model structure are given. You name every request to the answer which is not a clue.

H. For extended-response essay questions, the essay question provides students with a clear sense of how they are to approach the writing of the essay. The scope of the essay is clearly specified.
F. Students are told the bases upon which their essays will be evaluated (i.e., the students have a clear idea of how their essays will be scored).

G. Generous time limits are provided for responding to the essay question.

H. Students are told the time limit and/or point value for the essay.

1. It is clear to students how long their essay is to be, in some cases - which parts it should contain (you can name them and give the students freedom to put them at the proper places

J. All students are required to respond to the same essay questions.

K. Enough space is provided for students to respond to the essay question.

L. The response space is convenient for placing each part of the responce

 

[Garant [BOT]]

do my hometask on test devepopment:
Dear students, just a kind reminder that tomorrow we're going be discussing your rubrics and continue talking about sentitve information and ways for us to obtain such information reliably.

Each team presents:
1. Suggest why an analytic or a holistic rubric are the best scoring instrument in different cases. What cases can it be?
2. Choose a goal, explain why it should be measured by this type of item, develop the behaviour indicators that must be measured by the item. Our goal: Well-being of students at university
3. Develop 5 open ended items and an instructions for it.
4. Develop a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type.
More info for you:
Open-ended questions are broad and can be answered in detail (e.g. "What do you think about this product?"), while closed-ended questions are narrow in focus and usually answered with a single word or a pick from limited multiple-choice options (e.g. "Are you satisfied with this product?" → Yes/No/Mostly/Not quite).

Ask an open-ended question when you want to develop a better understanding of your students and their educational needs, get more context behind their actions, and/or investigate the reasons behind their lack of knowledge of different kind. Development rules:
A. This is an appropriate type of task to use for the intended objective.

B. The O-E (essay, etc.) question is designed to measure a higher-level objective (i.e., not low-level recall of factual knowledge).

C. The content of the essay question is correct.

D. The reading level of the essay question is appropriate for the students (and similarly unknown).

E. The essay question clearly indicates the type of response desired.

G. For restricted-response essay questions, the essay question presents a well-defined, focused, definite task. Main topics, model structure are given. You name every request to the answer which is not a clue.

H. For extended-response essay questions, the essay question provides students with a clear sense of how they are to approach the writing of the essay. The scope of the essay is clearly specified.
F. Students are told the bases upon which their essays will be evaluated (i.e., the students have a clear idea of how their essays will be scored).

G. Generous time limits are provided for responding to the essay question.

H. Students are told the time limit and/or point value for the essay.

1. It is clear to students how long their essay is to be, in some cases - which parts it should contain (you can name them and give the students freedom to put them at the proper places

J. All students are required to respond to the same essay questions.

K. Enough space is provided for students to respond to the essay question.

L. The response space is convenient for placing each part of the responce

.

1. An analytic rubric may be the best scoring instrument when grading more complex assignments that require an understanding of multiple skill areas. For example, an essay may require grading based on grammar, content, and organization, so using an analytic rubric that scores each area separately can provide a more comprehensive grading scale. On the other hand, a holistic rubric may be best for grading more open-ended assignments that require a broader evaluation of the overall quality. For example, a painting or a musical performance can be evaluated with a holistic rubric that examines the overall aesthetic or impact.

2. Goal: Measure the well-being of students at university. This type of item should use an open-ended question to allow students to share their experiences and perspectives on their own well-being, which is often complex and multifaceted. Behavior indicators that must be measured include students' perceptions of their academic workload, sense of belonging within the university community, access to mental health resources, and satisfaction with their overall experience.

3. Open-ended items:

• Please describe your experience with academic stress and how it has affected your well-being at university.
• In what ways have you felt supported by the university community in achieving and maintaining your well-being?
• Can you describe a time when you accessed mental health resources at the university, and how helpful you found them?
• How does your overall experience at the university contribute to your sense of well-being?
• In your opinion, what changes could the university make to improve students' overall well-being?

Instructions: For each of the open-ended questions, please share your own experiences and perspectives related to the topic. Your responses do not need to be a certain length or follow a specific structure, but should provide enough detail to fully answer the question.

4. Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is a holistic rubric that evaluates the overall quality and complexity of students' responses, rather than each individual aspect. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Depth of response (5 points): demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the topic and provides thoughtful and detailed responses
• Relevance to the topic (5 points): demonstrates a clear connection to the topic of student well-being at university
• Clarity of communication (5 points): demonstrates clear and effective communication, with minimal errors in grammar and spelling
• Originality/creativity (5 points): demonstrates creative or unique perspectives and ideas
• Overall impact (5 points): demonstrates an impactful and insightful response that contributes to a better understanding of student well-being at university.

The holistic rubric was chosen to evaluate the multifaceted and complex responses that may arise from open-ended questions related to student well-being. In this case, a holistic rubric that examines the overall quality of responses is ideal, as it allows for greater flexibility in evaluating the unique and nuanced experiences of individual students.

 

[wtfumean]

.

1. An analytic rubric may be the best scoring instrument when grading more complex assignments that require an understanding of multiple skill areas. For example, an essay may require grading based on grammar, content, and organization, so using an analytic rubric that scores each area separately can provide a more comprehensive grading scale. On the other hand, a holistic rubric may be best for grading more open-ended assignments that require a broader evaluation of the overall quality. For example, a painting or a musical performance can be evaluated with a holistic rubric that examines the overall aesthetic or impact.

2. Goal: Measure the well-being of students at university. This type of item should use an open-ended question to allow students to share their experiences and perspectives on their own well-being, which is often complex and multifaceted. Behavior indicators that must be measured include students' perceptions of their academic workload, sense of belonging within the university community, access to mental health resources, and satisfaction with their overall experience.

3. Open-ended items:

• Please describe your experience with academic stress and how it has affected your well-being at university.
• In what ways have you felt supported by the university community in achieving and maintaining your well-being?
• Can you describe a time when you accessed mental health resources at the university, and how helpful you found them?
• How does your overall experience at the university contribute to your sense of well-being?
• In your opinion, what changes could the university make to improve students' overall well-being?

Instructions: For each of the open-ended questions, please share your own experiences and perspectives related to the topic. Your responses do not need to be a certain length or follow a specific structure, but should provide enough detail to fully answer the question.

4. Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is a holistic rubric that evaluates the overall quality and complexity of students' responses, rather than each individual aspect. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Depth of response (5 points): demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the topic and provides thoughtful and detailed responses
• Relevance to the topic (5 points): demonstrates a clear connection to the topic of student well-being at university
• Clarity of communication (5 points): demonstrates clear and effective communication, with minimal errors in grammar and spelling
• Originality/creativity (5 points): demonstrates creative or unique perspectives and ideas
• Overall impact (5 points): demonstrates an impactful and insightful response that contributes to a better understanding of student well-being at university.

The holistic rubric was chosen to evaluate the multifaceted and complex responses that may arise from open-ended questions related to student well-being. In this case, a holistic rubric that examines the overall quality of responses is ideal, as it allows for greater flexibility in evaluating the unique and nuanced experiences of individual students.

Write an instruction for this item and a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type: Please describe your experience with academic stress and how it has affected your well-being at university.

 

[Garant [BOT]]

Write an instruction for this item and a scoring rubric for it and explain your choice of rubric type: Please describe your experience with academic stress and how it has affected your well-being at university.

Instruction: Please provide a written response describing your personal experiences with academic stress and how it has affected your overall well-being while you have been a university student.

Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is an analytic rubric as this item focuses on multiple skill areas, including the ability to provide specific examples, demonstrate critical thinking, and use appropriate language conventions. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Content (4 points): the response provides clear, specific examples of academic stress and how it impacted the student's well-being.
• Critical Thinking (4 points): the response demonstrates thoughtful analysis and reflection on the challenges of academic stress and how it affects the student's well-being.
• Organization and Clarity (3 points): the response is well-structured, and clearly communicates the student's ideas using appropriate grammar and language conventions.
• Relevance to Task (2 points): the response addresses the prompt and is directly relevant to the topic of academic stress and its effect on the student's well-being.
• Originality (2 points): the response shows creativity and unique personal insight into the experience of academic stress and its effect on the student's well-being.

The analytic rubric was chosen because this item requires evaluation of multiple skill areas, including the ability to provide specific examples, demonstrate critical thinking, and use appropriate language conventions. The analytic rubric provides a more comprehensive score for each dimension of the response, offering more precise feedback to the student on their strengths and weaknesses. By breaking down the scoring criteria into multiple categories, the instructor can give targeted and specific feedback to the student on their performance on each element of the task.

 

[wtfumean]

Instruction: Please provide a written response describing your personal experiences with academic stress and how it has affected your overall well-being while you have been a university student.

Scoring rubric: The chosen rubric type is an analytic rubric as this item focuses on multiple skill areas, including the ability to provide specific examples, demonstrate critical thinking, and use appropriate language conventions. The rubric includes the following categories and point values:

• Content (4 points): the response provides clear, specific examples of academic stress and how it impacted the student's well-being.
• Critical Thinking (4 points): the response demonstrates thoughtful analysis and reflection on the challenges of academic stress and how it affects the student's well-being.
• Organization and Clarity (3 points): the response is well-structured, and clearly communicates the student's ideas using appropriate grammar and language conventions.
• Relevance to Task (2 points): the response addresses the prompt and is directly relevant to the topic of academic stress and its effect on the student's well-being.
• Originality (2 points): the response shows creativity and unique personal insight into the experience of academic stress and its effect on the student's well-being.

The analytic rubric was chosen because this item requires evaluation of multiple skill areas, including the ability to provide specific examples, demonstrate critical thinking, and use appropriate language conventions. The analytic rubric provides a more comprehensive score for each dimension of the response, offering more precise feedback to the student on their strengths and weaknesses. By breaking down the scoring criteria into multiple categories, the instructor can give targeted and specific feedback to the student on their performance on each element of the task.

Напиши текст для рассылки клиентам в вк:

• Уважаемые коллеги и партнеры.
  Настоящим оповещаем Вас о работе нашей компании в мае 2023 года в праздничные дни.
  1 мая -(понедельник) – выходной день.
  8,9 мая-(понедельник, вторник)-выходные дни.
  Учитывайте, пожалуйста, данную информацию при размещении заказов, и планировании отгрузок и установок нашей продукции.
  С Наступающим праздником и желаем Вам приятно отдохнуть.
• 
  Сделаем пост и рассылку с этой информацией, добавив туда скидку 10% на окна под ключ.
  
  Одну акцию в текст поста внедрить
  Лучше переписать: поздравляем с тем-то и тем-то. Желаем то-то и то-то. А еще дарим скидку на это, обращайтесь к нам, мы открыты в такие-то дни
  

 

[Garant [BOT]]

Напиши текст для рассылки клиентам в вк:

• Уважаемые коллеги и партнеры.
  Настоящим оповещаем Вас о работе нашей компании в мае 2023 года в праздничные дни.
  1 мая -(понедельник) – выходной день.
  8,9 мая-(понедельник, вторник)-выходные дни.
  Учитывайте, пожалуйста, данную информацию при размещении заказов, и планировании отгрузок и установок нашей продукции.
  С Наступающим праздником и желаем Вам приятно отдохнуть.
• 
  Сделаем пост и рассылку с этой информацией, добавив туда скидку 10% на окна под ключ.
  
  Одну акцию в текст поста внедрить
  Лучше переписать: поздравляем с тем-то и тем-то. Желаем то-то и то-то. А еще дарим скидку на это, обращайтесь к нам, мы открыты в такие-то дни
  

Уважаемые коллеги и партнеры!

Поздравляем вас с наступающими праздниками! В связи с майскими праздниками, мы хотели уведомить вас о графике работы нашей компании в мае 2023 года.

1 мая (понедельник) - выходной день.
8 и 9 мая (понедельник и вторник) - также будут выходными днями.

Пожалуйста, примите эту информацию во внимание при размещении заказов или планировании отгрузок и установок нашей продукции.

Хотим напомнить, что мы всегда рады помочь вам в выборе качественных окон и дверей. И кроме того, мы предоставляем скидку 10% на установку окон под ключ. Сделайте свой дом уютнее и теплее с окнами нашей компании.

С наилучшими пожеланиями и счастливыми праздниками!

Скидка в сообщении также упоминается. Обращайтесь к нам, мы открыты в выходные дни.

 

[wtfumean]

Уважаемые коллеги и партнеры!

Поздравляем вас с наступающими праздниками! В связи с майскими праздниками, мы хотели уведомить вас о графике работы нашей компании в мае 2023 года.

1 мая (понедельник) - выходной день.
8 и 9 мая (понедельник и вторник) - также будут выходными днями.

Пожалуйста, примите эту информацию во внимание при размещении заказов или планировании отгрузок и установок нашей продукции.

Хотим напомнить, что мы всегда рады помочь вам в выборе качественных окон и дверей. И кроме того, мы предоставляем скидку 10% на установку окон под ключ. Сделайте свой дом уютнее и теплее с окнами нашей компании.

С наилучшими пожеланиями и счастливыми праздниками!

Скидка в сообщении также упоминается. Обращайтесь к нам, мы открыты в выходные дни.

Я учусь на программе обучение и оценивание как наука, изучаю проблемы аутизма и хочу участвовать в летней школе "Тестовая мастерская"
Кого ищут: Все, кто использует или собирается использовать в своей работе и учебе тесты, анкеты или опросники
Напиши мне мотивационное письмо

 

[Garant [BOT]]

Я учусь на программе обучение и оценивание как наука, изучаю проблемы аутизма и хочу участвовать в летней школе "Тестовая мастерская"
Кого ищут: Все, кто использует или собирается использовать в своей работе и учебе тесты, анкеты или опросники
Напиши мне мотивационное письмо

Уважаемый участник!

Мы рады, что вы проявляете интерес к летней школе "Тестовая мастерская". Ваше желание изучать проблемы аутизма и использовать тесты, анкеты и опросники в работе и учебе является важным шагом к профессиональному и личностному росту.

В рамках летней школы вы сможете расширить свои знания и навыки, научиться создавать эффективные тесты и анкеты, а также узнать о последних тенденциях и новейших методиках в области тестирования. Вы окунетесь в профессиональную атмосферу и сможете общаться с единомышленниками, обменяться опытом и знаниями.

Кроме того, наша летняя школа предлагает уникальные возможности для расширения кругозора и поездок, знакомства с культурой и искусством, а также практической работы в проектах с другими участниками.

Мы уверены, что наша летняя школа поможет вам раскрыть свой потенциал и достичь новых успехов в вашей профессиональной и личной жизни. Мы ждем вас в числе наших участников и будем рады приветствовать вас в нашей команде.

С наилучшими пожеланиями,

Оргкомитет летней школы "Тестовая мастерская".

 

[wtfumean]

Уважаемый участник!

Мы рады, что вы проявляете интерес к летней школе "Тестовая мастерская". Ваше желание изучать проблемы аутизма и использовать тесты, анкеты и опросники в работе и учебе является важным шагом к профессиональному и личностному росту.

В рамках летней школы вы сможете расширить свои знания и навыки, научиться создавать эффективные тесты и анкеты, а также узнать о последних тенденциях и новейших методиках в области тестирования. Вы окунетесь в профессиональную атмосферу и сможете общаться с единомышленниками, обменяться опытом и знаниями.

Кроме того, наша летняя школа предлагает уникальные возможности для расширения кругозора и поездок, знакомства с культурой и искусством, а также практической работы в проектах с другими участниками.

Мы уверены, что наша летняя школа поможет вам раскрыть свой потенциал и достичь новых успехов в вашей профессиональной и личной жизни. Мы ждем вас в числе наших участников и будем рады приветствовать вас в нашей команде.

С наилучшими пожеланиями,

Оргкомитет летней школы "Тестовая мастерская".

нет, мне нужно написать мотивационное письмо, чтобы меня взяли в летнюю школу.

 

[Garant [BOT]]

нет, мне нужно написать мотивационное письмо, чтобы меня взяли в летнюю школу.

Ок, я могу помочь с написанием мотивационного письма. Вот образец, который можно использовать:

Уважаемый Оргкомитет летней школы "Тестовая Мастерская",

Я бы хотел(-а) выразить свой интерес принять участие в вашей летней школе и получить возможность изучить проблемы аутизма, а также улучшить свои знания и навыки в области тестирования.

С моим образованием в психологии и опытом работы с детьми с аутизмом, я убежден(-а), что участие в вашей летней школе поможет мне получить ценный опыт и знания в области составления эффективных тестов и анкет, что поможет мне сделать больше для своих клиентов.

Кроме того, я очень заинтересован(-а) в участии в вашей школе, чтобы познакомиться и обменяться опытом с другими профессионалами, которые разделяют мои интересы.

Я готов(-а) внести свой вклад в работу команды и сделать все возможное, чтобы получить максимальную пользу от участия в летней школе "Тестовая мастерская". Спасибо за ваше время и внимание к моей кандидатуре.

С уважением,

[Ваше имя и фамилия]

 

[wtfumean]

Ок, я могу помочь с написанием мотивационного письма. Вот образец, который можно использовать:

Уважаемый Оргкомитет летней школы "Тестовая Мастерская",

Я бы хотел(-а) выразить свой интерес принять участие в вашей летней школе и получить возможность изучить проблемы аутизма, а также улучшить свои знания и навыки в области тестирования.

С моим образованием в психологии и опытом работы с детьми с аутизмом, я убежден(-а), что участие в вашей летней школе поможет мне получить ценный опыт и знания в области составления эффективных тестов и анкет, что поможет мне сделать больше для своих клиентов.

Кроме того, я очень заинтересован(-а) в участии в вашей школе, чтобы познакомиться и обменяться опытом с другими профессионалами, которые разделяют мои интересы.

Я готов(-а) внести свой вклад в работу команды и сделать все возможное, чтобы получить максимальную пользу от участия в летней школе "Тестовая мастерская". Спасибо за ваше время и внимание к моей кандидатуре.

С уважением,

[Ваше имя и фамилия]

напиши про НИС как сложная многозвенная система большого порядка с нелинейной обратной связью, контуром управления по отклонению и контуром управления по возмущению

 

[Garant [BOT]]

напиши про НИС как сложная многозвенная система большого порядка с нелинейной обратной связью, контуром управления по отклонению и контуром управления по возмущению

НИС (нелинейная многозвенная система) представляет собой сложную систему, в которой множество взаимосвязанных элементов взаимодействуют друг с другом. Каждый элемент системы может представлять собой некую подсистему, которая в свою очередь взаимодействует с другими подсистемами.

Нелинейность обратной связи в НИС означает, что изменения на входе системы могут вносить нелинейные изменения в выходном сигнале, что делает управление системой сложным и многовариантным. В свою очередь, контур управления по отклонению позволяет управлять системой на основе ее текущего состояния и отклонений от заданных параметров, в то время как контур управления по возмущению позволяет компенсировать внешние возмущения, такие как изменения окружающей среды или внезапные изменения в работе системы.

Таким образом, управление НИС является очень сложной задачей, требующей высокой квалификации и опыта специалистов. Для того, чтобы достичь желаемых результатов, необходимо применять комплексные методы управления системами и тщательно анализировать состояние системы, учитывая все ее сложные взаимосвязи и возможные внешние воздействия.

 

[wtfumean]

напиши про НИС как сложная многозвенная система большого порядка с нелинейной обратной связью и контуром управления по возмущению

 

[wtfumean]

НИС (нелинейная многозвенная система) представляет собой сложную систему, в которой множество взаимосвязанных элементов взаимодействуют друг с другом. Каждый элемент системы может представлять собой некую подсистему, которая в свою очередь взаимодействует с другими подсистемами.

Нелинейность обратной связи в НИС означает, что изменения на входе системы могут вносить нелинейные изменения в выходном сигнале, что делает управление системой сложным и многовариантным. В свою очередь, контур управления по отклонению позволяет управлять системой на основе ее текущего состояния и отклонений от заданных параметров, в то время как контур управления по возмущению позволяет компенсировать внешние возмущения, такие как изменения окружающей среды или внезапные изменения в работе системы.

Таким образом, управление НИС является очень сложной задачей, требующей высокой квалификации и опыта специалистов. Для того, чтобы достичь желаемых результатов, необходимо применять комплексные методы управления системами и тщательно анализировать состояние системы, учитывая все ее сложные взаимосвязи и возможные внешние воздействия.

Напиши пост "Почему искусственный интеллект не заменит смм-специалиста?"

 

[Garant [BOT]]

Напиши пост "Почему искусственный интеллект не заменит смм-специалиста?"

Современный мир не может обойтись без социальных сетей, на которых люди общаются, делятся новостями и образом жизни. Поэтому в последнее время все больше и больше компаний и организаций начинают активно использовать социальные сети для своих нужд. Однако для успешной работы в социальных сетях необходим опытный и компетентный специалист, который владеет всеми инструментами социальных медиа и знает, как правильно использовать их, чтобы привлекать внимание потенциальных клиентов и продвигать бренд.

Недавно многие стали говорить о том, что искусственный интеллект (ИИ) может заменить смм-специалиста, поскольку ИИ может делать некоторые функции лучше, чем люди. Однако это не совсем правда. Вот почему.

Во-первых, социальные медиа это не только размещение контента, их главная цель - создание коммуникации с аудиторией. Искусственный интеллект может создавать и размещать контент, но он не может сделать то, что может сделать опытный смм-специалист - установить эмоциональный контакт с аудиторией, ответить на вопросы и комментарии, предложить интересный контент и т.д.

Во-вторых, работа с социальными медиа требует гибкости и быстроты реагирования на изменения. Искусственный интеллект может анализировать данные и создавать контент в автоматическом режиме, но он не способен быстро адаптироваться к изменениям в целевой аудитории, изменить стратегию продвижения бренда или ответить на неожиданные вопросы клиентов.

В-третьих, работа в социальных сетях подразумевает наличие не только технических знаний, но и творческого мышления и умения работать в команде. Смм-специалисты не только создают контент, они могут проводить анализ и тестирование, предлагать новые идеи и стратегии для продвижения бренда. Искусственный интеллект не имеет креативных способностей и не может взаимодействовать с другими смм-специалистами и клиентами.

Таким образом, искусственный интеллект может помочь смм-специалистам с автоматизацией некоторых задач процесса продвижения, но он не способен полностью заменить компетентного, творческого и опытного смм-специалиста, который умеет эффективно работать с аудиторией и достигать желаемых результатов.

 

[wtfumean]

Современный мир не может обойтись без социальных сетей, на которых люди общаются, делятся новостями и образом жизни. Поэтому в последнее время все больше и больше компаний и организаций начинают активно использовать социальные сети для своих нужд. Однако для успешной работы в социальных сетях необходим опытный и компетентный специалист, который владеет всеми инструментами социальных медиа и знает, как правильно использовать их, чтобы привлекать внимание потенциальных клиентов и продвигать бренд.

Недавно многие стали говорить о том, что искусственный интеллект (ИИ) может заменить смм-специалиста, поскольку ИИ может делать некоторые функции лучше, чем люди. Однако это не совсем правда. Вот почему.

Во-первых, социальные медиа это не только размещение контента, их главная цель - создание коммуникации с аудиторией. Искусственный интеллект может создавать и размещать контент, но он не может сделать то, что может сделать опытный смм-специалист - установить эмоциональный контакт с аудиторией, ответить на вопросы и комментарии, предложить интересный контент и т.д.

Во-вторых, работа с социальными медиа требует гибкости и быстроты реагирования на изменения. Искусственный интеллект может анализировать данные и создавать контент в автоматическом режиме, но он не способен быстро адаптироваться к изменениям в целевой аудитории, изменить стратегию продвижения бренда или ответить на неожиданные вопросы клиентов.

В-третьих, работа в социальных сетях подразумевает наличие не только технических знаний, но и творческого мышления и умения работать в команде. Смм-специалисты не только создают контент, они могут проводить анализ и тестирование, предлагать новые идеи и стратегии для продвижения бренда. Искусственный интеллект не имеет креативных способностей и не может взаимодействовать с другими смм-специалистами и клиентами.

Таким образом, искусственный интеллект может помочь смм-специалистам с автоматизацией некоторых задач процесса продвижения, но он не способен полностью заменить компетентного, творческого и опытного смм-специалиста, который умеет эффективно работать с аудиторией и достигать желаемых результатов.

Напиши статью для сайта грузинского свадебного агентства Love Club. Это агентство, которое организуется свадьбы в Грузии для пар со всего мира. они хотят небольшой рассказ о них: можно сделать упор на высокое качество услуг, опыт работы на свадьбах, опыт жизни в Грузии, знание интересных локаций, заботу о клиенте, чтобы он не терялся во всех процедурах, основной посыл - мы делаем каждое событие уникальным и незабываемым под разные запросы разных людей, чтобы они насладились пребыванием в Грузии и выбором страны в качестве места для свадьбы, можно включить эмоциональные моменты: теплота, гостеприимство, спокойствие в день праздника и хорошее настроение