IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v15y2025i2p21582440251346346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Judgment: Building a Shared Consensus Over Rater Variation in Assessing Second Language Writing Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Qian Wu

Abstract

Rater variation has been a persistent concern for rater-mediated writing assessments. Instead of treating rater variation as an undesired source of measurement error, the method of comparative judgment (CJ) uses pairwise comparisons to elicit relative judgments from raters and statistical estimation to construct a measurement scale to rank object items, offering a viable approach to accommodate rater-associated heterogeneity of judgment making on the one hand and obtain reliable and valid outcomes on the other hand. The current study systematically examined the utility and quality of CJ as an assessment tool in the context of second language writing. A group of 16 raters (8 experienced and 8 novice) performed the CJ assessment on 94 pieces of English writing texts in the absence of rubric criteria. Despite raters’ varying expertise and rating experiences, raters were able to deliver judgments consistent with the shared consensus, yielding a CJ rank order of the writing texts with a moderate reliability. The analyses of raters’ justifications for judgment making showed that raters varied substantially in terms of evaluation criteria, but the collective expertise derived from the iterative CJ process presented a close alignment with the established scoring rubric. Additionally, inconsistencies were explored when raters and texts significantly deviated from the consensus of judgments, and practical implications were discussed. The results provide empirical evidence for the construct validity of CJ and add a novel perspective to the discussion of rater variation in second language writing assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Qian Wu, 2025. "Comparative Judgment: Building a Shared Consensus Over Rater Variation in Assessing Second Language Writing Performance," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(2), pages 21582440251, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:15:y:2025:i:2:p:21582440251346346
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440251346346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251346346
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440251346346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    comparative judgment; rater variation; L2 writing assessment; pairwise comparisons; reliability; construct validity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:15:y:2025:i:2:p:21582440251346346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.