ACER models of writing: Changing the assessment mindset

This presentation outlines different models of writing assessment that have a proven track record in various programs delivered by ACER. These models include holistic scoring, and partial analytical scoring on a number of criteria. The writing prompts for these models assume extended pieces of writing. The presentation will also introduce a new and alternative model of writing assessment that ACER has implemented in several large-scale assessments. This model is built on shorter pieces of writing from each student, designed to give more accurate and diverse insights into students’ proficiency in writing in a range of text types, within the constraints of limited assessment time. Each short piece is coded using a different marking scheme with customised criteria. The three models – holistic scoring, partial analytical scoring and customised criterion scoring – are designed for different assessment contexts, from high-stakes selection to formative use by classroom teachers

Searching for Programme theories for a realist evaluation: a case study comparing an academic database search and a simple Google search

Background: Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review. Methods: We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source. Results: The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2. Conclusion: The striking difference between the efficiency of the review’s academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

National Assessment Program : Civics and Citizenship Years 6 and 10 Report 2013

This report presents the findings of the 2013 National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship (NAP – CC) and is conducted under the auspices of the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) Education Council. Under the National Assessment Program, the Civics and Citizenship sample assessment is administered to a representative sample of Year 6 and Year 10 students on a triennial cycle. After three rounds of assessments – which were undertaken in 2004, 2007 and 2010 – this report looks at the 2013 assessment and examines emerging trends. The National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship measures not only students’ skills, knowledge and understandings of Australia’s system of government and civic life but also student attitudes, values and participation in civic-related activities at school and in the community. NAP – CC is the first NAP sample assessment to be trialled and delivered to students online. This is a significant milestone for national assessment in Australia and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)