Oranges and Apples? Using Comparative Judgement for Reliable Briefing Paper Assessment in Simulation Games

Abstract

Achieving a fair and rigorous assessment of participants in simulation games represents a major challenge. Not only does the difficulty apply to the actual negotiation part, but it also extends to the written assignments that typically accompany a simulation. For one thing, if different raters are involved, it is important to assure that differences in severity do not affect the grades. Recently, comparative judgement (CJ) has been introduced as a method allowing for a team-based grading. This chapter discusses in particular the potential of comparative judgement for assessing briefing papers from 84 students. Four assessors completed 622 comparisons in the Digital Platform for the Assessment of Competences (D-PAC) tool. Results indicate a reliability level of 0.71 for the final rank order, which had demanded a time investment around 10.5 h from the team of assessors. Next to this, there was no evidence of bias towards the most important roles in the simulation game. The study also details how the obtained rank orders were translated into grades, ranging from 11 to 17 out of 20. These elements showcase CJ’s advantage in reaching adequate reliability levels for briefing papers in an efficient manner.