385,153 research outputs found
æéåšæ³¢æ°å¹³é¢ãçšããé³å£°ãåãããªãé³ä¿¡å·æ··åæ³ã®è©äŸ¡
æ¬è«æã§ã¯ïŒé³ã®ããã·ã³ã°ã«æéåšæ³¢æ°å¹³é¢ãçšããããšã®æå¹æ§ã瀺ãïŒèè
ãã¯ïŒæéåšæ³¢æ°å¹³é¢ãçšããæ°ããé³ä¿¡å·æ··åæ³ãææ¡ããŠããïŒæéåšæ³¢æ°å¹³é¢ãçšããããšã§ïŒåå
¥åä¿¡å·ã®ç¹åŸŽãæãïŒä¿¡å·éã®ç¹åŸŽã®çžäºé¢ä¿ã«æ²¿ã£ãç·»å¯ãªåŠçãå®çŸã§ããïŒãã®èãã«ç«èããããã·ã³ã°ææ³ãšããŠïŒé³å£°ãšBGM(Background Music)ãšã®ããã·ã³ã°æã«ïŒé³å£°ãåãããªãé³ä¿¡å·æ··åæ³ãææ¡ããŠããïŒæ¬è«æã§ã¯ææ¡æ³ãæéåšæ³¢æ°é åã§ã®åŠçã§ããããšã®æå¹æ§ãïŒèŽåå®éšã«ããæ€èšŒããïŒå
·äœçã«ã¯ïŒææ¡æ³ã§ã®å€åéãïŒåšæ³¢æ°é åïŒæéé åã§ã®åŠçã§è¿äŒŒãïŒäºè§£åºŠãšäž»èŠ³è©äŸ¡ãæ¯èŒããŠè©äŸ¡ããïŒãããã®æ€èšã«ããïŒæéåšæ³¢æ°å¹³é¢ãçšããé³ä¿¡å·æ··åæ³ã®æå¹æ§ã瀺ã
2002幎床 é¢æ°è§£æåŠç¹å¥ç 究 : å¢è£æ¹èšç(2018幎)
ã·ã¥ã¯ã«ãè¶
é¢æ°è«ãããŒãªãšçŽæ°è«çã®åºç€çäºé
ã«ã€ããŠè§£èª¬ããæ¥ååå¢çå€åé¡ãžã®çŸä»£çãªå
¥éè¬çŸ©ãè¡ããè¬çŸ©åïŒé¢æ°è§£æåŠç¹å¥ç 究ãæ¥ååå¢çå€åé¡å
¥éãéèšçµç¹ïŒå士課çšæ°çç©è³ªç§åŠç 究ç§ã»æ°åŠå°æ»éè¬ææïŒ2002幎床å¢è£æ¹èšç(2018幎10æ
è©äŸ¡è ç¹æ§ãã©ã¡ãŒã¿ãä»äžããé ç®åå¿ã¢ãã«ã«åºã¥ãããã©ãŒãã³ã¹ã»ãã¹ãã®çå粟床
è¿å¹ŽïŒåéšè
ã®å®è·µçãã€é«æ¬¡ã®èœåã枬å®ããææ³ã®äžã€ãšããŠããã©ãŒãã³ã¹è©äŸ¡ã泚ç®ãããŠããïŒäžæ¹ã§ïŒããã©ãŒãã³ã¹è©äŸ¡ã®åé¡ãšããŠïŒèœå枬å®ã®ç²ŸåºŠãè©äŸ¡è
ãšããã©ãŒãã³ã¹èª²é¡ã®ç¹æ§ã«åŒ·ãäŸåããç¹ãææãããŠããïŒãã®åé¡ã解決ããææ³ãšããŠïŒè¿å¹ŽïŒè©äŸ¡è
ãšèª²é¡ã®ç¹æ§ãè¡šããã©ã¡ãŒã¿ãä»äžããé
ç®åå¿ã¢ãã«ãå€æ°ææ¡ããïŒãã®æå¹æ§ã瀺ãããŠããïŒä»æ¹ïŒçŸå®ã®è©äŸ¡å Žé¢ã§ã¯ïŒè€æ°åã®ç°ãªãããã©ãŒãã³ã¹ãã¹ãã®çµæãæ¯èŒããããŒãºããã°ãã°çããïŒãã®ãããªå Žåã«é
ç®åå¿ã¢ãã«ãé©çšããããã«ã¯ïŒåã
ã®ãã¹ãçµæããæšå®ãããã¢ãã«ãã©ã¡ãŒã¿ãåäžå°ºåºŠäžã«äœçœ®ä»ãããçåããå¿
èŠãšãªãïŒäžè¬ã«ïŒããã©ãŒãã³ã¹ãã¹ãã®çåãè¡ãããã«ã¯ïŒãã¹ãéã§èª²é¡ãšè©äŸ¡è
ã®äžéšãå
±éããããã«åã
ã®ãã¹ããèšèšããå¿
èŠãããïŒãã®ãšãïŒçåã®ç²ŸåºŠã¯ïŒå
±é課é¡ãå
±éè©äŸ¡è
ã®æ°ïŒåãã¹ãã«ãããåéšè
ã®èœåç¹æ§ååžïŒåéšè
æ°ã»è©äŸ¡è
æ°ã»èª²é¡æ°ãªã©ã®æ§ã
ãªæ¡ä»¶ã«äŸåãããšèããããïŒãããïŒãããŸã§ïŒãããã®èŠå ãçå粟床ã«äžãã圱é¿ã¯æããã«ãããŠãããïŒãã¹ããã©ã®ããã«èšèšããã°é«ç²ŸåºŠãªçåãå¯èœãšãªããã¯ç€ºãããŠããªãã£ãïŒããã§æ¬ç 究ã§ã¯ïŒé
ç®åå¿ã¢ãã«ãããã©ãŒãã³ã¹è©äŸ¡ã«é©çšããŠçåãè¡ãå Žåã«ïŒãã®ç²ŸåºŠã«åœ±é¿ãäžããèŠå ãå®éšã«ããæããã«ãïŒãã®çµæã«åºã¥ãïŒé«ãçå粟床ãéæããããã«å¿
èŠãªãã¹ãã®ãã¶ã€ã³ã«ã€ããŠåºæºã瀺ãïŒIn various assessment contexts, performance assessment has attracted much attention to measure higher order abilities of examinees. However, a persistent difficulty is that the ability measurement accuracy depends strongly on rater and task characteristics. To resolve this problem, various item response theory (IRT) models that incorporate rater and task characteristic parameters have been proposed. On the other hand, scores obtained from a performance test is often compared to those obtained from different tests practically. For that purpose, test equating, which is the statistical process of determining comparable scores on different forms, is required. To conduct the test equating, each test must be formed to have common raters and performance tasks. In this case, accuracy of the equating depends on various settings including the number of common raters and tasks, the ability distribution assumed in each tests, the number of examinees, rater and tasks. However, no relevant studies have examined what factors affect the equating accuracy. For that reason, the study evaluates the accuracy of performance test equating based on the IRT models while changing the test design. From the result, we show the factors affecting the equating accuracy and give some designs providing high equating accuracy
枬å®ç²ŸåºŠã®åã軜æžã®ããã®ç質é©å¿åãã¹ãã®ææ¡
é©å¿åãã¹ããšã¯ïŒåæ€è
ã®èœåãé次çã«æšå®ãïŒãã®èœåã«å¿ããŠæž¬å®ç²ŸåºŠãæãé«ãé
ç®ãåºé¡ããã³ã³ãã¥ãŒã¿ã»ãã¹ãã£ã³ã°ã®åºé¡åœ¢åŒã§ããïŒãã®ææ³ã§ã¯ïŒæããããé
ç®ãé£ããããé
ç®ã®åºé¡ãæžå°ããããïŒåæ€è
ã®æž¬å®ç²ŸåºŠãæžå°ãããã«åæ€æéãé
ç®æ°ã軜æžã§ããïŒãããïŒåŸæ¥ã®é©å¿åãã¹ãã§ã¯ïŒèœåãåçãªåæ€è
ã«ã¯å
šãåãé
ç®çŸ€ãåºé¡ãããå¯èœæ§ãé«ãïŒå®éã«é©å¿åãã¹ããå°å
¥ããŠããSPIãGTECã®éèŠãªåé¡ã«ãªã£ãŠããïŒæ¬ç 究ã§ã¯ïŒèœåãåçãªåæ€è
ã§ãã£ãŠãç°ãªãé
ç®ãåäžã®æž¬å®ç²ŸåºŠãä¿ã¡ã€ã€é©å¿çã«åºé¡ã§ããç質é©å¿åãã¹ããææ¡ããïŒå
·äœçã«ã¯ïŒææ¡ææ³ã§ã¯æ¬¡ã®ããã«é
ç®åºé¡ãè¡ãïŒ1ïŒ2017幎æç¹ã§æå
端ã®è€æ°ç質ãã¹ãæ§æææ³ãçšããŠïŒç°ãªãé
ç®ã§æ§æãããã枬å®ç²ŸåºŠãç質ã«ãªããããªç質ãã¹ããå€æ°æ§æããïŒ2ïŒåæ€è
ããšã«ç°ãªãç質ãã¹ããäžã€å²ãåœãŠïŒãã®ãã¹ãå
ã®é
ç®éåãã¢ã€ãã ãã³ã¯ãšã¿ãªããŠé©å¿åãã¹ããå®æœããïŒæ¬è«ã§ã¯ïŒã·ãã¥ã¬ãŒã·ã§ã³å®éšãšå®ããŒã¿ãçšããå®éšã«ããææ¡ææ³ã®æå¹æ§ã瀺ãïŒAdaptive testing is a question format of computer testing that estimates an examinee\u27s ability sequentially and which produces question items with the highest estimation accuracy according to the examinee\u27s ability. The technique mitigates the creation of overly easy or overly difficult questions, which can reduce the time spent on a test, and reduces the number of items without reducing the estimation accuracy for the examinee\u27s ability. However, in conventional adaptive tests, it is highly likely that the exact same group of items will be prepared for examinees who have equivalent ability. The tests cannot be used practically under circumstances by which the same learner can take a test multiple times, such as SPI and GTEC. In this paper, we propose a multiple equivalent adaptive test that adaptively creates different items for examinees even if those with equivalent capabilities, maintaining the same evaluation accuracy. Specifically, we follow the procedure outlined below. 1) We compose an item cluster for a multiple equivalent test based on the amount of test information so that the measurement accuracy for examinees\u27ability can be equivalent despite consisting of different items. To compose a multiple equivalent test, we use a technique that employs the maximum clique problem to maximize the number of compositions from items within an item bank. 2) Regarding an item cluster for a multiple equivalent test as an item bank, we propose a multiple equivalent adaptive test that estimates the value of an examinee\u27s ability sequentially and which selects items with the greatest amount of information for the value of ability from an item cluster for a multiple equivalent test. This paper presents the effectiveness of the technique through a simulation experiment and with item banks used by actual test providers
ãã£ãžã¿ã«ãªãŒãã£ãªä¿¡å·ã®ãµã³ãã«æ¬ ãã®äœçœ®æšå®ãšä¿®åŸ©
ãã£ãžã¿ã«ãªãŒãã£ãªä¿¡å·ããŒã¿ã®è»¢éã®éïŒã¯ããã¯åæã®èšå®ã誀ããšïŒãµã³ãã«ã®æ¬ ããéè€ãçããŠããŸãïŒæ¬è«æã§ã¯ïŒãã®ãã¡ãµã³ãã«æ¬ ãã«çŠç¹ãããŒãïŒä¿®åŸ©ãè¡ãæ¹æ³ã«ã€ããŠè¿°ã¹ãïŒãŸãïŒåæãã¹ã«ãã£ãŠèµ·ãããµã³ãã«æ¬ ãã®åãåé¡ããåŸïŒäžã€ã®è©äŸ¡é¢æ°ã§ïŒãµã³ãã«æ¬ ãã®äœçœ®æšå®ïŒãµã³ãã«æ¬ ãã®åã®å€å®ïŒå€±ãããä¿¡å·å€ã®åŸ©å
ãè¡ãæ¹æ³ãææ¡ããïŒæ¬¡ã«ïŒè©äŸ¡é¢æ°ãåŸãæ¹æ³ãšããŠïŒç·åœ¢äºæž¬èª€å·®ãèŠç¯ãšããæ¹æ³ïŒã¹ããŒã¹æ§ãèŠç¯ãšããæ¹æ³ïŒãšã³ããããŒãèŠç¯ãšããæ¹æ³ã®äžã€ãå®åŒåããïŒæåŸã«ïŒãããäžã€ãå®éšçã«æ¯èŒãïŒãšã³ããããŒãèŠç¯ãšããæ¹æ³ãæãåªããŠããããšã瀺ã
決å®æšåŠç¿ãå©çšããããžãã¹ããã»ã¹å®è¡ãã°æ€èšŒã®ããã®è«çåŒã®çæ
æ
å ±ã·ã¹ãã ã«ãã£ãŠèšé²ãããããžãã¹ããã»ã¹ã®å®è¡å±¥æŽãåæããããšã¯ããã»ã¹ãã€ãã³ã°ãšåŒã°ãïŒå®éã«è¡ãããããžãã¹ããã»ã¹ã®åé¡ãææ¡ããŠæ¹åãžç¹ããããã®éèŠãªæ段ã§ããïŒLTL checkerã¯ç·åœ¢æçžè«ç(LTL)ãããŒã¹ã«ãã圢åŒçãªèšèªãå©çšããŠããžãã¹ããã»ã¹ã«ãããŠæãç«ã€ã¹ãæ§è³ªãèšè¿°ãïŒæ€èšŒãè¡ãããã®ããŒã«ã§ããïŒããžãã¹ããã»ã¹ã®åæãè¡ãããã®æåãªæ段ãšããŠç¥ãããŠããïŒãããïŒå€ãã®ããžãã¹ã¢ããªã¹ãã¯LTLã®ãããªæ°åŠçãªèšæ³ã«ç²ŸéããŠããªãããïŒããžãã¹ããã»ã¹ã«ãããŠæ€èšŒãããæ§è³ªãèšè¿°ããéã«ïŒçã«æ€èšŒãã¹ãæ§è³ªãæ£ç¢ºã«èšè¿°ããããšã¯å°é£ã§ããïŒè«çåŒã誀ã£ãŠèšè¿°ããå Žåã¯åœç¶ã®ããšãªããæ¬æ¥æå³ããŠããæ€èšŒãè¡ãããšã¯ã§ããªãïŒããã§æ¬ç 究ã§ã¯æåž«ããæ©æ¢°åŠç¿ææ³ã®äžçš®ã§ãã決å®æšãçšããŠããžãã¹ããã»ã¹å®è¡ãã°ããã€ãã³ãã®å®è¡é åºé¢ä¿ã«çç®ããŠæœåºããç¹åŸŽéã«åºã¥ããŠåŠç¿ãè¡ãïŒè«çåŒãèªåçæããããšã§æ€èšŒãããæ§è³ªãèšè¿°ããææ³ãææ¡ããïŒæ¬ææ³ãçšããããšã§ïŒæ°åŠçãªææ³ã«ç²ŸéããŠããªãè
ã§ãæ€èšŒãã¹ãæ§è³ªãèšè¿°ããããšãã§ããïŒæ¬ææ³ã®åŠ¥åœæ§ã瀺ãããã«ïŒé»è©±ä¿®çããã»ã¹ã«å¯Ÿãææ¡ææ³ãé©çšãïŒæå¹æ§ã確èªããïŒProcess mining is a important means for analyzing business process and LTL checker is a famous tool for process mining. However, since many business analysts are not familiar with mathematical notation like LTL, it is difficult to describe exactly the property to be verified when describing the property to be verified in the business process is there. Therefore, in this study, learning is performed based on feature quantities extracted from the business process execution log using a decision tree, and a logical expression is automatically generated. We propose a method to describe properties to be verified
Model Specification Problems in Value Relevance Studies
æ¬è«æã¯ïŒ äŒèšåŠã«ããã䟡å€é¢é£ç 究 (value relevance studies) ã«é¢ããçè«ãšèšŒæ ããµãŒãã€ããŠããã䟡å€é¢é£ç 究ã«ãããŠã¯ïŒæ ªäŸ¡ã¢ãã«ãšãªã¿ãŒã³ã¢ãã«ãšåŒã°ããäºã€ã®ååž°ã¢ãã«ãæãé »ç¹ã«äœ¿ãããŠããããããã®ã¢ãã«ã®çè«çæ ¹æ ã¯ïŒå
±ã«Ohlson/RIVã¢ãã«ãšããåäžã®äŒæ¥è©äŸ¡ã¢ãã«ã«æ±ããããã®ã ãïŒãã®2ã€ã®ååž°ã¢ãã«ãçšããŠåŸãããçµæã¯ãã°ãã°ç°ãªã£ãŠããããã®çç±ãšããŠïŒæ ªäŸ¡ã¢ãã«ã«é¢ããåé¡ãšããŠã¯ãèŠæš¡å¹æ (scale effects) ãïŒãªã¿ãŒã³ã¢ãã«ã«é¢ããåé¡ãšããŠã¯ïŒãäŒèšèªèã©ã° (accounting recognition lag) ããšãäžæå©ç (transitory earnings) ããææãããŠããããããŠãããã®åé¡ãç·©åããããã®å¹Ÿã€ãã®ææ³ãç 究è
ã«ãã£ãŠææ¡ãããŠã¯ãããã®ã®ïŒãããã¯äœããåé¡ã®å®å
šãªã解決ã«ã¯ãªã£ãŠããªãããã®ãããªç¶æ³ã«ãããŠã¯ïŒäž¡æ¹ã®ã¢ãã«ãçšããŠãã®çµæã®æ床ã調ã¹ãããšãé©åã§ããããšæããã
- âŠ