Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incorporating Groupwork into Performance Assessments: Psychometric Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 13))

Abstract

Organizations increasingly rely on groups or teams to carry out many types of tasks. To assess individuals’ capabilities in working with others and the performance or productivity of groups, groupwork must be incorporated into performance assessments. The purpose of this chapter is to enumerate and describe the challenges that emerge in performance assessments that include groupwork, and to offer suggestions for addressing the challenges and identify areas for future research. One set of challenges is that groups may function differently and in ways that do not align well with the goal of the assessment. Group dynamics influencing assessment scores include the nature of task-related interaction with others, lack of involvement of one or more team members, uncoordinated group communication, social-emotional processes, and division of labor. Another set of challenges is the large number of sources of measurement error that are unique to groupwork or that operate in new and different ways in groupwork settings. These sources, which have implications for validity and reliability, include variation due to group composition, role assignment in the group, task and type of task, occasion of observation, rater and type of rating or rating scale, and automatic coding and scoring. This chapter describes strategies for investigating and addressing the complexity involved in assessing groupwork performance, and describes implications for practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It should be noted that other self-rating methods for gauging teamwork skills include questionnaires asking respondents to rate their own skills (e.g., “I am a good listener”), and multiple-choice situational judgment tests asking examinees to pick the best option for resolving hypothetical groupwork scenarios or pick the option that best represents how they would react (National Research Council 2011; Wang et al. 2009). Because these measures typically are not directly tied to actual groupwork activities, they are not considered further here.

References

  • Arthur, W., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D. P., Amodeo, A. M., Krokos, K. J., Slonim, A., & Herrera, H. (2010). Assessing teamwork attitudes in healthcare: development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork attitudes questionnaire. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, qshc–2009.036129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1369–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. B. (1992). SEA usage of alternative assessment: The Connecticut experience. In Proceedings of the National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues (2nd ed.). Washington, DC, September 4–6, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. B. (1994). Using multi-dimensionality to capture verisimilitude: Criterion-referenced performance-based assessments and the ooze factor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., & Sailer, L. (1979/1980). Informant accuracy in social network data IV: A comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data. Social Networks, 2, 191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, M. C., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1114–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M. T., Prince, A., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1995). The measurement of team process. Human Factors, 37, 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M. T., Roach, R. M., & Salas, E. (1993). Understanding team performance: A multimethod study. Human Performance, 6, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L. (1995). The conventional wisdom about group mean scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chizhik, A. W., Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, E. W., & Goodman, J. A. (2003). The rise and fall of power and prestige order: Influence of task structure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, G. K. W. K., O’Neil, H. F., & Herl, H. E. (1999). The use of computer-based collaborative knowledge mapping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 463–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. P., & Cohen, E. G. (1991). From groupwork among children to R&D teams: Interdependence, interaction, and productivity. Advances in Group Processes, 8, 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L. G., & Hartog, S. B. (2011). Assessment centers: A blended adult development strategy. In M. London (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 231–250). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). the dependability of behavioral measurements. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorsey, D., Russell, S., Keil, C., Campbell, G., Van Buskirk, W., & Schuck, P. (2009). Measuring teams in action: Automated performance measurement and feedback in simulation-based training. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin & C. Shawn Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 351–381). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. L. (2004), The measurement of individual and unit expertise. In J. W. Ness, V. Tepe & D. R. Ritzer (Eds.), The science and simulation of human performance (advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research, volume 5) (pp.11–124). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esmonde, I. (2009). Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two cooperative activity structures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 247–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fall, R., Webb, N. M., & Chudowsky, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students’ comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 911–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, S. (2008). Design and psychometric considerations for assessments of speaking proficiency: The english language development assessment (ELDA) as illustration. Educational Assessment, 13, 132–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltz, P. W., & Martin, M. J. (2008). Automated communication analysis of teams. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin & C. Shawn Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 411–431). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, C. M., Graesser, A. C., Pavlik, P., Cai, Z., Butler, H., Halpern, D. F., & Millis, K. (2013). Operation ARIES! Methods, mystery, and mixed models: Discourse features predict affect in a serious game. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5, 147–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowlkes, J. E., Lane, N. E., Salas, E., Franz, T., & Oser, R. (1994). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETs Methodology. Military Psychology, 6, 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 225–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaczi, E. D. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 89–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London, England: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, B. A., Linton, F. N., Gaimari, R. D., Hitzeman, J. M., Ross, H. J., & Zarrella, G. (2005). Using dialogue features to predict trouble during collaborative learning. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 15, 85–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., Rus, V., D’Mello, S., & Jackson, G. T. (2008). AutoTutor: Learning through natural language dialogue that adapts to the cognitive and affective states of the learner. In D. H. Robinson & G. J. Schraw (Eds.), Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 95–125). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiton, G., Hodgson, C. S., Delandshere, G., & Wilkerson, L. (2004). Communication skills in standardized-patient assessment of final-year medical students: A psychometric study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9, 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B. J., & Meade, A. (2012). Alternate approaches to understanding the psychometric properties of assessment centers: An analysis of the structure and equivalence of exercise ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, A. (2008). Making assessment centers work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L. (2010). Serious use of a serious game for language learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20, 175–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenderski, C. M. (1983). Interaction processes and learning among third grade Black and Mexican-American students in cooperative small groups. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumbasar, E., Kimball Romney, A., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Systematic biases in social perception. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 477–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2006). Performance assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazaraton, A. (1996). Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: The case of CASE. Language Testing, 13, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens, F., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 247–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 505–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, J., Entin, E. B., Morley, R., & Bennett, W. (2013). Measuring team performance in complex and dynamic military environments: The SPOTLITE Method. Military Psychology, 25, 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, M. E. (2003). Research on the oral proficiency interview: Analysis, synthesis, and future directions. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 491–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryland State Department of Education. (1994). Maryland school performance assessment program: Public release tasks. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, L. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26, 397–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., Spada, H., & Rummel, N. (2007). A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriac, J. P., Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., & Fleisher, M. S. (2008). Further evidence for the validity of assessment center dimensions: A meta-analysis of the incremental criterion-related validity of dimension ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1042–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A., Catchpole, K., & McCulloch, P. (2009). The Oxford NOTECHS system: Reliability and validity of a tool for measuring teamwork behavior in the operating theatre. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18, 104–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. J., Pittini, R., Regehr, G., Marrs, C., & Haley, M. F. (2007). Evaluating teamwork in a simulated obstetric environment. Anesthesiology, 106, 907–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, J., Stegmann, K., Mayfield, E., Rose, C., & Fischer, F. (2012). The ACODEA framework: Developing segmentation and classification schemes for fully automatic analysis of online discussions. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakatsuhara, F. (2011). Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in group oral tests. Language Testing, 28, 483–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core standards mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2013). New directions in assessing performance of individuals and groups: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, W. (1993, September). Making group assessments fair measures of students’ abilities. Paper presented at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing’s Conference on “Assessment Questions: Equity Answers”, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Allred, K., & Dennis, R. (1992). Simulation as a performance assessment technique for the interpersonal skill of negotiation. Technical report, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S. S., & Baker, E. L. (2010). Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem solving. In D. Ifenthaler et al. (Eds.), Computer-Based Diagnostics and Systematic Analysis of Knowledge (pp. 261–279). Springer Science + Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockey, G. J., Koyama, D., & Setoguchi, E. (2013). Stakeholder input and test design: A case study on changing the interlocutor familiarity facet of the group oral discussion test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 292–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., et al. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self- and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 609–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013, March). PISA 2015 draft collaborative problem solving framework. Available: www.oecd.org

  • Pomplun, M. (1996). Cooperative groups: Alternative assessment for students with disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 30, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan,v?, 146–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter Lagha, R. (2013). Accuracy of professional self-reports. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter Lagha, R., Boscardin, C. K., May, W., & Fung, C. C. (2012). A comparison of two standard-setting approaches in high-stakes clinical performance assessment using generalizability theory. Academic Medicine, 87, 1077–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimor, R., Rosen, Y., & Naser, K. (2010). Complexity of social interactions in collaborative learning: The case of online database environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning objects, 6, 355–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Education Technology Research Development. doi:10.1007/211423-009-9142-9

  • Rose, C., Wang, Y. C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2008). Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 237–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Y., & Tager, M. (March, 2013). Computer-based assessment of collaborative problem-solving skills: Human-to-agent versus human-to-human approach. Research report, Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ, S., Hull, L., Rout, S., Vincent, C., Darzi, A., & Sevdalis, N. (2012). Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: Feasibility of clinical and nonclinical assessor calibration with short-term training. Annals of Surgery, 255, 804–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2003). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 339–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saner, H., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & Bell, R. (1994) The effects of working in pairs in science performance assessments. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCANS (1999). Skills and Tasks for Jobs: A SCANS Report for 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 704–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2011). Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 21, 560–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, T. H., Shore, L. M., & Thornton, G. C. (1992). Construct validity of self- and peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbau, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Johnston, J. H., & Payne, S. C. (1998). Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (Vol. 1, pp. 61–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soland, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2013). Measuring 21st century competencies: Guidance for educators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, A. B., Christiansen, N. D., Goffin, R. D., & Goff, M. (2013). Situational bandwidth and the criterion-related validity of assessment center ratings: Is cross-exercise convergence always desirable? Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0035213

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, B. (2010). Performance assessment in an era of standards-based educational accountability. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggar, S., & Brown, T. C. (2001). Problem-solving team behaviors: Development and validation of BOS and a hierarchical factor structure. Small Group Research, 32, 698–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Davier, A. A., & Halpin, P. F. (2013, December). Collaborative problem solving and the assessment of cognitive skills: Psychometric considerations. Research Report ETS RR-13-41. Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., MacCann, C., Zhuang, X., Liu, O. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Assessing teamwork and collaboration in high school students: A multimethod approach. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 108–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D. J., Shi, X., McFarland, D. A., & Leskovec, J. (2012). Measurement error in network data: A re-classification. Social Networks,. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.01.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1993). Collaborative group versus individual assessment in mathematics: Processes and outcomes. Educational Assessment, 1, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 943–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 506–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 97–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimmers, P., & Lee, M. (2014). Identifying longitudinal growth trajectories of learning domains in problem-based learning: A latent growth curve modeling approach using SEM. Advances in Health Sciences Education. doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9541-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, N., & Behuniak, P. (1993, April). Collaboration in student assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., & Ohland, M. W. (2009). How to assign individualized scores on a group project: An empirical evaluation. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 290–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Noreen M. Webb

Authors
  1. Noreen M. Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noreen M. Webb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Paul F. Wimmers

  2. Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

    Marcia Mentkowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Webb, N.M. (2016). Incorporating Groupwork into Performance Assessments: Psychometric Issues. In: Wimmers, P., Mentkowski, M. (eds) Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30064-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30064-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30062-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30064-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation