Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In educational measurement, bias is defined as "Systematic errors in test content, test administration, and/or scoring procedures that can cause some test takers to get either lower or higher scores than their true ability would merit." [16] The source of the bias is irrelevant to the trait the test is intended to measure.
Systematic errors in the measurement of experimental quantities leads to bias in the derived quantity, the magnitude of which is calculated using Eq(6) or Eq(7). However, there is also a more subtle form of bias that can occur even if the input, measured, quantities are unbiased; all terms after the first in Eq(14) represent this bias.
If the instrument has a needle which points to a scale graduated in steps of 0.1 units, then depending on the design of the instrument, it is usually possible to estimate tenths between the successive marks on the scale, so it should be possible to read off the result to an accuracy of about 0.01 units.
Accuracy is also used as a statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies or excludes a condition. That is, the accuracy is the proportion of correct predictions (both true positives and true negatives) among the total number of cases examined. [10]
Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed. [1]
It is used primarily as a visual aid for detecting bias or systematic heterogeneity. A symmetric inverted funnel shape arises from a ‘well-behaved’ data set, in which publication bias is unlikely. An asymmetric funnel indicates a relationship between treatment effect estimate and study precision.
The Performance Test Standard PTC 19.1-2005 "Test Uncertainty", published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), discusses systematic and random errors in considerable detail. In fact, it conceptualizes its basic uncertainty categories in these terms.
Participants may remember the correct answers or may be conditioned to know that they are being tested. Repeatedly taking (the same or similar) intelligence tests usually leads to score gains, but instead of concluding that the underlying skills have changed for good, this threat to Internal Validity provides a good rival hypothesis.