Examinee X and Examinee Y submit a

Examinee X and Examinee Y submit a complex set of performances that,
given a careful look, appear qualitatively indistinguishable. However,
Examinee X’s materials are more artfully packaged because her school
district provides teachers with state-of-the-art equipment and frequent
staff development conducted by faculty from a nearby university.
The portfolios are Examinee X and Examinee Y submit a complex set of performances that,
given a careful look, appear qualitatively indistinguishable. However,
Examinee X’s materials are more artfully packaged because her school
district provides teachers with state-of-the-art equipment and frequent
staff development conducted by faculty from a nearby university.
The portfolios are scored at two separate sites so that enough raters
with the necessary content expertise can be hired and trained, results can
be returned efficiently, and the scoring contractor can meet deadlines.
The first site has experienced raters and staff. Many of the raters at the
first scoring site have also participated in the university’s staff development
program. Raters at the second site are to be trained and supervised
by a staff working on this project for the first time. This second site has
been added to meet the unanticipated volume of candidates.
The portfolio of Examinee X is scored at the first site, whereas the
portfolio of Examinee Y is scored at the second site. Examinee X passes
the exam, whereas Examinee Y does not. Although it is impossible to
tease out all the variables and explain why Examinee X got a higher
score than Examinee Y, and whether these results are accurate, we provide
this scenario to illustrate some of the factors that might affect scores
and decisions about examinees.
Is this what really happens around the edges of performance scoring
centers? Rarely, but it does describe the mythology and misgivings that
surround performance assessments. For examinees and test developers
who are comfortable with the longevity of selected-response assessments,
the rating of performance assessments raises questions. Scoring can goscored at two separate sites so that enough raters
with the necessary content expertise can be hired and trained, results can
be returned efficiently, and the scoring contractor can meet deadlines.
The first site has experienced raters and staff. Many of the raters at the
first scoring site have also participated in the university’s staff development
program. Raters at the second site are to be trained and supervised
by a staff working on this project for the first time. This second site has
been added to meet the unanticipated volume of candidates.
The portfolio of Examinee X is scored at the first site, whereas the
portfolio of Examinee Y is scored at the second site. Examinee X passes
the exam, whereas Examinee Y does not. Although it is impossible to
tease out all the variables and explain why Examinee X got a higher
score than Examinee Y, and whether these results are accurate, we provide
this scenario to illustrate some of the factors that might affect scores
and decisions about examinees.
Is this what really happens around the edges of performance scoring
centers? Rarely, but it does describe the mythology and misgivings that
surround performance assessments. For examinees and test developers
who are comfortable with the longevity of selected-response assessments,
the rating of performance assessments raises questions. Scoring can go

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Peserta ujian X dan Y peserta ujian menyerahkan yang kompleks seperangkat pertunjukan itu,diberikan cermat, muncul secara kualitatif dibedakan. Namun,Peserta ujian x bahan lebih berseni dikemas karena sekolahDistrik menyediakan guru dengan negara-of-the-art peralatan dan seringPengembangan staf yang dilakukan oleh Fakultas dari Universitas terdekat.Portofolio yang menggantikan X dan Y peserta ujian menyerahkan yang kompleks seperangkat pertunjukan itu,diberikan cermat, muncul secara kualitatif dibedakan. Namun,Peserta ujian x bahan lebih berseni dikemas karena sekolahDistrik menyediakan guru dengan negara-of-the-art peralatan dan seringPengembangan staf yang dilakukan oleh Fakultas dari Universitas terdekat.Portofolio mencetak pada dua situs terpisah jadi yang cukup penilaidengan keahlian konten dapat menjadi dipekerjakan dan terlatih, hasil dapatdikembalikan secara efisien, dan kontraktor penilaian dapat memenuhi tenggat waktu.Situs pertama telah mengalami rating dan staf. Banyak dari penilai disitus penilaian yang pertama juga telah berpartisipasi dalam pengembangan staf Universitasprogram. Penilai di situs kedua yang harus dilatih dan diawasioleh staf yang bekerja pada proyek ini untuk pertama kalinya. Situs ini kedua memilikitelah ditambahkan untuk memenuhi volume tak terduga kandidat.Portofolio peserta ujian X mencetak di pertama situs, sedangkanportofolio peserta ujian y mencetak di kedua situs. Peserta ujian X Tiketthe exam, whereas Examinee Y does not. Although it is impossible totease out all the variables and explain why Examinee X got a higherscore than Examinee Y, and whether these results are accurate, we providethis scenario to illustrate some of the factors that might affect scoresand decisions about examinees.Is this what really happens around the edges of performance scoringcenters? Rarely, but it does describe the mythology and misgivings thatsurround performance assessments. For examinees and test developerswho are comfortable with the longevity of selected-response assessments,the rating of performance assessments raises questions. Scoring can goscored at two separate sites so that enough raterswith the necessary content expertise can be hired and trained, results canbe returned efficiently, and the scoring contractor can meet deadlines.The first site has experienced raters and staff. Many of the raters at thefirst scoring site have also participated in the university’s staff developmentprogram. Raters at the second site are to be trained and supervisedby a staff working on this project for the first time. This second site hasbeen added to meet the unanticipated volume of candidates.The portfolio of Examinee X is scored at the first site, whereas theportfolio of Examinee Y is scored at the second site. Examinee X passesthe exam, whereas Examinee Y does not. Although it is impossible totease out all the variables and explain why Examinee X got a higherscore than Examinee Y, and whether these results are accurate, we providethis scenario to illustrate some of the factors that might affect scoresand decisions about examinees.Is this what really happens around the edges of performance scoringcenters? Rarely, but it does describe the mythology and misgivings thatsurround performance assessments. For examinees and test developerswho are comfortable with the longevity of selected-response assessments,the rating of performance assessments raises questions. Scoring can go