ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- To ensure fairness across different evaluators who may have varying standards of strictness, normalizing results is a critical process. This involves adjusting scores to a common scale and calibrating the assessments across different reviewers. This process reduces the impact of biases and ensures consistent evaluation of scholarship applicants, no matter who conducts them.
Let us tell you a story.
An ivy league university that we will not mention year over year would have evaluators question why particular candidates were not selected. Those that reviewed the applicant thought they were strong fits and actually one of the highest they evaluated.
For the sake of privacy, let’s pretend this evaluators name was Bob. Bob, who never scores an applicant greater than 15 evaluated a particular candidate as a 14. Bob later was shocked to hear that this applicant was not selected as it was the highest rated applicant Bob scored. Looking into the data, it was later identified that because not all applicants were evaluated by all reviewers, that some evaluators were scoring people as 25s consistently. While that particular candidate was scored “highly” by Bobs standards, it was actually quite low compared to the standards of other evaluators. This lies the problem - how do we not only identify judging trends by particular evaluators, but also take this into account when generating results.
Standardization Techniques: Implementing statistical methods to adjust scores based on the average stringency or leniency of reviewers. Reviewers normalization report will identify each particular judges average score amongst all the applicants they review, and then compare that overall average against a particular candidate to see if that applicant is higher, or lower, than how that judge normally scores. We can then create a baseline of “average” and use this averaged baseline in comparison to other judges and applicants.
Calibration Sessions: Regular meetings where reviewers discuss and align on scoring standards to ensure consistency in how evaluation criteria are applied.
Feedback Loops: Incorporating feedback from both reviewers and grant candidates to continuously refine the scoring and normalization processes.
This normalization is vital for maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process, ensuring that all candidates are judged fairly and equitably, irrespective of which reviewers assess their applications.
