Test Development & Validity Determination

ExpertRating tests are developed under well laid down guidelines set under ISO 9001:2015 (TUV, America) mandated policies and processes. The typical test development flow is depicted below:

01 Test Definition
02 Job Analysis
03 Test Specifications (or Test Blueprint) Development
04 Item Writing
05 Language Editing
06 Technical Review
07 Beta Testing
08 Reliability, Validity Analysis & Review
09 Passing/ Cut Score Analysis
10 Release of the Final Version of the Test
11 Periodic Test Maintenance

01 Test Definition

We work with clients and sponsors to identify the purpose of each test, the target audience, the competency level to be assessed and other parameters. Once the parameters have been agreed upon, they are frozen in the form of a Test Definition Document.

05 Language Editing

The raw test is proofread for grammatical errors. It goes through a spell check and a plagiarism check. The language is made compliant with Chicago style of English.

08 Reliability, Validity Analysis & Review

Test-retest reliability is carried out. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of reliability is computed. Difficulty and discrimination analysis is carried out. Items which adversely impact these measures are weeded out such that only the best performing items are accepted into the final draft.
PRODUCT
RESOURCES
COMPANY
FOLLOW
McAfee SECURE sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams
© 2024 ExpertRating LLC. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
×

  • Candidate Name:

    John Doe

  • Test Pin:

    E5046444

  • Exam Name:

    3ds Max 8.0 Test

  • Date:

    Thursday, June 11, 2015

  • Score : 3
  • Percentage: 23%
  • Result : Fail

Overall Performance
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Weak
Average
Above Average
Good
Expert

Sub-scale Performance of Section 1

Sub-scale Name
Weak

(0-5)
Average

(6)
Above Average

(7)
Good

(8)
Expert

(9-10)
Animation
Sub-scale score out of 10: 2
Particles
Sub-scale score out of 10: 3
3d Modeling
Sub-scale score out of 10: 0
Materials and Texturing
Sub-scale score out of 10: 4
Rendering and Effects
Sub-scale score out of 10: 4

Efficiency:

Accuracy
Speed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Accuracy:

The candidate has obtained weak score in accuracy.

Speed:

The candidate has obtained expert score in speed.

Efficiency:

Based on the collective scores of accuracy and speed, the overall efficiency of the candidate is weak.

Strengths

  • No evident Strengths

Improvement Areas

  • Animation
  • Particles
  • 3d Modeling
  • Materials and Texturing
  • Rendering and Effects

The results of this test show that John Doe might not be best suited for jobs, which require specific focus on Animation, Particles, 3d Modeling, Materials and Texturing, Rendering and Effects.

Job Suitability

The analysis of John Doe’s performance in this test in terms of speed and accuracy with which he/ she attempted this test reveals that he/ she is weak/below average in accuracy as compared to other test takers and the time taken for completing the test was exceptionally less. If you require a candidate who is above average at understanding problems and drawing accurate inferences, and the job is time critical, then John Doe may not be shortlisted.

Disclaimer:
The results of this report are intended to serve as general guidelines only and should be used in combination with other recruitment tools such as evaluation of academic performance, employment history, and personality. The candidate’s performance on this test depends on a number of factors and ExpertRating does not guarantee same or similar results in the future or in a different test setting.
Copyright © 2015 ExpertRating Solutions.