Examining rating quality in writing assessment: rater agreement, error, and accuracy.

The use of performance assessments in which human raters evaluate student achievement has become increasingly prevalent in high-stakes assessment systems such as those associated with recent policy initiatives (e.g., Race to the Top). In this study, indices of rating quality are compared between two measurement perspectives. Within the context of a large-scale writing assessment, this study focuses on the alignment between indices of rater agreement, error, and accuracy based on traditional and Rasch measurement theory perspectives. Major empirical findings suggest that Rasch-based indices of model-data fit for ratings provide information about raters that is comparable to direct measures of accuracy. The use of easily obtained approximations of direct accuracy measures holds significant implications for monitoring rating quality in large-scale rater-mediated performance assessments.