Development of the Measure of Assessment Self-Efficacy (MASE) for Quizzes and Exams

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18631v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 03:17:08 GMT
• Title: Development of the Measure of Assessment Self-Efficacy (MASE) for Quizzes and Exams
• Abstract summary: Measures of assessment-related self-efficacy concentrate on students' beliefs about content-specific tasks but omit beliefs around assessment-taking.<n>This research aimed to develop and test the Measure of Assessment Self-Efficacy (MASE), designed to assess two types of efficacy beliefs related to assessment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Self-efficacy is a significant construct in education due to its predictive relationship with achievement. Existing measures of assessment-related self-efficacy concentrate on students' beliefs about content-specific tasks but omit beliefs around assessment-taking. This research aimed to develop and test the Measure of Assessment Self-Efficacy (MASE), designed to assess two types of efficacy beliefs related to assessment (i.e., 'comprehension and execution' and 'emotional regulation') in two scenarios (i.e., a low-stakes online quiz and a high-stakes final exam). Results from confirmatory factor analysis in Study 1 (N = 301) supported the hypothesised two-factor measurement models for both assessment scenarios. In Study 2, results from MGCFA (N = 277) confirmed these models were invariant over time and provided evidence for the scales' validity. Study 3 demonstrated the exam-related MASE was invariant across cohorts of students (Ns = 277; 329). Potential uses of the developed scales in educational research are discussed.

Related papers

• Measuring Computational Thinking Self-Efficacy (CT-SEI): Instrument development and preliminary evaluation [0.0]
  We created an instrument to measure self-efficacy of students in higher education for Computational Thinking skills.<n>Data was collected from 270 students in higher education recruited both through Prolific and a university setting in Costa Rica.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T08:50:51Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical LLMs: Benchmarking and Enhancing Confidence Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Consultation [97.36081721024728]
  We propose the first benchmark for assessing confidence in multi-turn interaction during realistic medical consultations.<n>Our benchmark unifies three types of medical data for open-ended diagnostic generation.<n>We present MedConf, an evidence-grounded linguistic self-assessment framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T04:51:39Z)
• DeepSurvey-Bench: Evaluating Academic Value of Automatically Generated Scientific Survey [53.85391477976017]
  DeepSurvey-Bench is a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively evaluate the academic value of generated surveys.<n>We construct a reliable dataset with academic value annotations, and evaluate the deep academic value of the generated surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T14:42:56Z)
• Assessment Twins: A Protocol for AI-Vulnerable Summative Assessment [0.0]
  We introduce assessment twins as an accessible approach for redesigning assessment tasks to enhance validity.<n>We use Messick's unified validity framework to systematically map the ways in which GenAI threaten content, structural, consequential, generalisability, and external validity.<n>We argue that the twin approach helps mitigate validity threats by triangulating evidence across complementary formats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T12:05:34Z)
• AnesBench: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of LLM Reasoning in Anesthesiology [47.52685298426068]
  We systematically evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in anesthesiology.<n>AnesBench is a cross-lingual benchmark designed to assess anesthesiology-related reasoning across three levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T08:54:23Z)
• Wearable Device-Based Real-Time Monitoring of Physiological Signals: Evaluating Cognitive Load Across Different Tasks [6.673424334358673]
  This study employs cutting-edge wearable monitoring technology to conduct cognitive load assessment on electroencephalogram (EEG) data of secondary vocational students. The research delves into their application value in assessing cognitive load among secondary vocational students and their utility across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T10:48:26Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• The Generative AI Paradox on Evaluation: What It Can Solve, It May Not Evaluate [17.77014177096838]
  This paper explores the assumption that Large Language Models (LLMs) skilled in generation tasks are equally adept as evaluators. We assess the performance of three LLMs and one open-source LM in Question-Answering (QA) and evaluation tasks using the TriviaQA dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T06:16:08Z)
• Modeling the Uncertainty with Maximum Discrepant Students for Semi-supervised 2D Pose Estimation [57.17120203327993]
  We propose a framework to estimate the quality of pseudo-labels in semi-supervised pose estimation tasks. Our method improves the performance of semi-supervised pose estimation on three datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T08:11:06Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Prototyping Theories with ChatGPT: Experiment with the Technology Acceptance Model [0.0]
  The objective of the studies is to assess ChatGPT's ability to comprehend theoretical concepts and differentiate between constructs. The results of the experiments indicate that ChatGPT can generate responses aligned with the constructs of the Acceptance Technology Model (TAM) The experiments reveal potential biases in the generated samples, particularly regarding gender and usage experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-04T23:55:53Z)
• The competent Computational Thinking test (cCTt): a valid, reliable and gender-fair test for longitudinal CT studies in grades 3-6 [0.06282171844772422]
  This study investigated whether the competent Computational Thinking test (cCTt) could evaluate learning reliably from grades 3 to 6 (ages 7-11) using data from 2709 students. The findings indicate that the cCTt is valid, reliable and gender-fair for grades 3-6, although more complex items would be beneficial for grades 5-6.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T03:29:04Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• The competent Computational Thinking test (cCTt): Development and validation of an unplugged Computational Thinking test for upper primary school [0.8367620276482053]
  The competent CT test (cCTt) is an unplugged CT test targeting 7-9 year-old students. The expert evaluation indicates that the cCTt shows good face, construct, and content validity. The psychometric analysis of the student data demonstrates adequate reliability, difficulty, and discriminability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-11T15:05:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.