Limitations of QWK in Evaluating Automated and Human Scoring Systems

Abstract To assess the interrater reliability of human ratings of constructed responses (CR), or the accuracy of scores given by automated scoring engines, concordance metrics quantify agreement between measures. This article examines the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) in these contexts and highlights its practical limitations compared to other metrics. Both empirical and simulation study results reveal how different factors including the shape of the marginal distributions and score scale length may impact the estimates and how we can adjust for these properties of the contingency table. The results highlight the QWK's sensitivities and suggest that additional caution should be taken before decisions about whether to keep a CR item on a test form are made. If using QWK without the proper interpretive supports, such decisions may be misinformed. Consequently, we make suggestions for best practices to promote responsible evaluation of agreement in the context of CR scoring in educational testing.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Educational Measurement Issues and Practice
Published
2026-02-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.70017
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Limitations of QWK in Evaluating Automated and Human Scoring Systems

Jodi M. Casabianca, Jennifer Lewis
Educational Measurement Issues and Practice
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
article

Limitations of QWK in Evaluating Automated and Human Scoring Systems

Jodi M. Casabianca, Jennifer Lewis
article en

Abstract

Abstract To assess the interrater reliability of human ratings of constructed responses (CR), or the accuracy of scores given by automated scoring engines, concordance metrics quantify agreement between measures. This article examines the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) in these contexts and highlights its practical limitations compared to other metrics. Both empirical and simulation study results reveal how different factors including the shape of the marginal distributions and score scale length may impact the estimates and how we can adjust for these properties of the contingency table. The results highlight the QWK's sensitivities and suggest that additional caution should be taken before decisions about whether to keep a CR item on a test form are made. If using QWK without the proper interpretive supports, such decisions may be misinformed. Consequently, we make suggestions for best practices to promote responsible evaluation of agreement in the context of CR scoring in educational testing.

Educational Measurement Issues and PracticeVol. 45(1)
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US), Radiometrics (United States) (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 37%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Limitations of QWK in Evaluating Automated and Human Scoring Systems — Jodi M. Casabianca, Jennifer Lewis · Educational Measurement Issues and Practice (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS