Independent multiple-marking of 186 examination scripts, and non-independent double marking of 766 scripts, are reported. The impression of close agreement given by the latter is apparently spurious for the independent marking showed much greater discrepancies. Though between-marker correlations were high, the range of marks awarded to a script was often disturbingly large.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BullG. M.‘Examinations’, J. Med. Educ., 34, 1154–58 (1959).
2.
CoxR.‘Examinations and Higher Education’, Universities Quarterly, 21, 292–340 (June 1967).
3.
DaleR. R.‘University Standards’, Universities Quarterly, 13, 186–195 (1959). (‘The calm assurance with which lecturers and professors alike believe that they can carry around in their heads an unfailingly correct conception of an absolute standard of forty percent as the pass line, is incomprehensible to anyone who has studied the research on the reliability of examinations’).
4.
Report of the Committee on University Teaching Methods. HMSO, 1964 (The Hale Report).
