About this Research Topic
The comparative assessment approach is based on Thurstone’s law of comparative judgement (1927), which states that it is possible to discriminate between objects on a single scale through a series of pairwise comparisons. Even though Thurstone already proposed the possibility of using comparative judgement for assessment in education, it was not until 2004 that Pollitt introduced the method in education by his paper ‘Let’s stop marking exams’. His work convincingly explained the merits of comparative assessment and provided the first evidence for a reliable summative assessment. Now, almost 2 decades later, various comparative judgement tools are available for education. Moreover, researchers around the world have investigated the reliability, validity and efficiency of the method. Each with their own approach, perspective and research focus.
In this Research Topic we aim to provide a state-of-the-art of comparative judgement in education for summative and formative purposes. We will introduce the history of comparative judgement and bring together current insights on validity, reliability and efficiency of the method. In their contributions, authors should present recent empirical research. In this way, this article collection offers the foundation for the future of educational assessment.
We welcome original empirical studies, original research and meta-analyses from around the world, as well as reviews and perspectives on the validity, reliability and/or efficiency of comparative judgement in educational settings to consolidate this topic and provide trends and challenges, as well as future research priorities.
Keywords: comparative judgement, reliability, validity, efficiency, educational assessment
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.