The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by METANET, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]metanet.ch.

decisionfacets

Would this candidate have passed with a different set of raters?

Decision accuracy and consistency for rater-mediated exams (oral exams, OSCEs, essay and constructed-response scoring), built on the many-facet Rasch rating scale model for rating categories and, since version 0.2.0, a linear many-facet model for continuous scores such as 0-100.

library(decisionfacets)

sim <- df_simulate(n_persons = 1000, n_items = 4, n_raters = 12,
                   raters_per_person = 2, severity_sd = 0.6, seed = 1)
fit <- df_fit(sim$data)                      # TAM if installed, else built-in JMLE

cut <- df_cut(16, decision_rule = "raw_total")
cf  <- df_counterfactual(fit, cut)           # per-candidate pass probabilities
cf                                           # most rater-dependent candidates first
df_attribute(cf)                             # measurement error vs rater assignment

Oral examinations: one examiner per case, scores 0-100

Many oral certification exams score each case with a different examiner on a 0-100 scale. Since version 0.2.0, decisionfacets handles that design directly:

d   <- df_data(oral_exam, person = "candidate", item = "case",
               rater = "examiner", scale = "continuous")  # synthetic example data
fit <- df_fit(d)                                         # linear many-facet model
cf  <- df_counterfactual(fit, df_cut(70, "raw_mean"))    # pass if the mean score reaches 70
cf
df_attribute(cf)

Each counterfactual reassignment draws, for every case, an examiner qualified for that case, never the same examiner twice for one candidate. oral_exam is fully synthetic: 300 candidates, 12 cases, 48 examiners.

Installation

From CRAN:

install.packages("decisionfacets")

Development version from GitHub:

install.packages("pak")
pak::pak("edidatasolutions/decisionfacets")

The decision rule is the point

How much rater severity harms a candidate depends on what the board decides on:

Internally every rule reduces to a raw-total cut that depends on the panel (harsher panels get lower cuts under measure-based rules), so pass probabilities are computed exactly: by convolving category probabilities for rating categories, and from the normal distribution for continuous scores.

Scoring designs

df_fit() stops if the rating network is disconnected, because examiner severities would then not be on a common scale.

What each candidate gets

df_counterfactual() returns pass probabilities under the observed panel, an average-severity panel, and a random panel from the pool (enumerated when feasible), plus the best and worst panel. advantage is how far the assigned panel pushed the candidate toward the outcome they received; candidates with advantage >= 0.2 are flagged lenient_panel_pass or harsh_panel_fail.

df_attribute() splits expected misclassifications into measurement error (present even with average raters), rater assignment (observed minus average), and the expected cost of the random assignment design.

Validation (known truth, 100 replications)

1,000 candidates, 4 items, 12 raters (severity SD 0.6), 2 raters per candidate, cut = mean rating of 2. Means over 100 replications:

• Raw totals: 176 truly rater-dependent candidates per 1,000. TAM flags 169, recovering 71% of true flags (75% of TAM’s flags are real). An oracle with the true parameters also recovers 71%, so the remaining gap is measurement error from 8 ratings per candidate, not estimation error.
• Expected misclassifications per 1,000: 160 under raw totals (116 measurement, 44 rater assignment) versus 117 under the measure rule (assignment about 1). TAM estimates: 160 / 116 / 44. Realized errors in the simulation: 160.
• Under measure-based and fair-average rules, no candidate is flagged as rater-dependent.

One examiner per case, scores 0-100

400 candidates; 6 or 12 cases each, scored by one examiner per case; examiner severity SD 2, 4 or 6 score points; 4 or 10 qualified examiners per case; residual SD 8; pass if the mean score reaches 70. 50 replications per condition (600 data sets; inst/validation/assignment_study.R):

• Severity spread drives everything (it explains 70% of the variance in the number of examiner-dependent candidates). Twelve cases dilute examiner effects more than six, so fewer candidates depend on their examiners.
• Examiner severities are recovered with correlation 0.84-0.99 (lowest when examiners barely differ) and RMSE of about 1 point; the residual SD is estimated at 7.9 (true 8).
• Expected misclassifications are calibrated: they differ from those that actually occurred by -0.3 per data set on average, and the estimated examiner component is within 0.2 of the truth.
• Severity-adjusted scoring (measure, fair_average) removes examiner dependence entirely.
• Individual flags are harder than in two-rater panels: with many examiners per candidate the examiner effect on any one decision is small relative to measurement error, so estimates find 31-58% of truly examiner-dependent candidates, and 60-71% of their flags are correct. The program-level decomposition remains accurate.

Status

Current limits: crossed designs need equal panel sizes; no missing ratings within a candidate’s assignment; severity only (no halo or drift terms); the continuous model uses a single residual SD for all examiners and ignores the bounds of the score scale. With few ratings per person, JMLE stretches the logit scale (~15% in validation); prefer TAM.

Getting help and contributing

Questions and bug reports: https://github.com/edidatasolutions/decisionfacets/issues. See CONTRIBUTING.md for how to report problems, get help, or contribute code.

These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.