# data[].attributes.body
The reliability of end of topic tests and more importantly the mock exam data - this can often be used to set the tier for Science exam entry. This decision should not be on those results alone, they should have more of an importance on the students background as that will play a bigger role in their performance in the exams.

# data[].attributes.body
This is really interesting to consider. Assessments which are used for the purposes of big decisions (e.g. setting) should aim to be maximally reliable. I am torn between thinking that such decisions should be made on the basis of multiple assessments, and then wondering whether that just increases the opportunities for reliability to be compromised?
Ideally, I think all assessments should be used to help teachers respond to student needs. If this is consistently the case, then perhaps drawing evidence from multiple sources does mean that the reliability of any one particular assessment score becomes less important - it is only part of the bigger picture used to make an inference about learning.

# data[].attributes.body
This module has made me reflect on how little thought most teachers give to the reliability of assessments. In a primary school, only a small proportion of our assessments have high stakes (for the children, at least).
I have been concerned about the reliability of our writing assessment - as it is subjective. This year we are taking steps to make this more reliable. We are doing more in-school and more local authority moderation.
The end of year judgements need to be reliable as they contribute to performance related pay and impact on the next teacher’s progress data. I don’t feel that our SLT appreciate the implications of this.

# data[].attributes.body
Exams - sample cross moderation makes a MASSIVE difference to reliability of whole cohort data.  E.g. A new teacher may be marking incorrectly and this needs to be spotted. But also experienced teachers make mistakes (sometimes ingrained misconceptions) and moderation helps iron these out.
Tests - Lower stakes and less time to moderate therefore less likely to happen!

# data[].attributes.body
In my dept we try to ensure consistency in end of year exams by having one staff member mark each section. There is not usually time for moderation, so intra-rater reliability is usually the problem.
For class tests this is a similar problem.

I'm not usually concerned with reliability of formative tests as the focus is on improving student performance in particular skills rather than simply in the outcome.

Even then, there is usually some limited discussion about marking bands and some very limited moderation.

Improving reliability in the summative tests are most important.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is reliability really worth worrying about?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is reliability really worth worrying about?

# data[].attributes.body
I would be tempted to say that the only situation where we want to enhance reliability is for mock GCSE and A-level exams. For most other situations I would think reliability is automatically enhanced by repeated assessments and aggregated data. For example, setting in my school happens based on performance in english, maths and science (multiple tests), which I would argue makes the decision fairly reliable.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes teachers should of course aim to maximise the reliability of their assessments, but they should be given time to achieve this. We are given no time to moderate end of unit tests at key stage three for example, so therefore moderation rarely happens.

# data[].attributes.body
One question in the back of my mind this year was how reliable were TAG grades across the country in my subject area. With the one constant of a series of examination papers taken away, it almost felt that the reliability had been taken away. I feel like with such high-stakes assessments, reliability in TAGs should have been more thought through centrally and more prescribed to centres to avoid variations. Have I measured my students too harshly or too lightly through the process we followed?

# data[].attributes.body
Where the assessment is determining setting I think that we need to really work harder as teams to maximise reliability particularly as we know what the impact on self esteem and mindset there is when moving ‘down’ a set.

Some of my assessments are to test the quality of my communication as well as what students have learnt so I am not as bothered about reliability if I am using the test to see where all students understood or struggled with content.

I am interested in inter-rater reliability as I think in a busy school year this suffers, school leaders need to provide the opportunity to discuss and respond to this.

# data[].attributes.body
I think I have at times had high levels of intra-rater variation.  I am trying to get round it by marking more demanding assessment questions first, to avoid fatigue and inconsistency.

I am bias too.  If I am unsure whether to give a mark I do look at the students name and commit a cognitive shortcut of deciding what they might have meant. That needs to stop.

Triangulation sounds like it would provide more reliable results and I can see it being good for assessing skills, but could we  assess all aspects of subject knowledge using it, the quantity of data generated would be huge?

If assessing subject knowledge is the aim, we must start by ensuring that the reading age does not exceed the age of the students sitting the exam (apparently maths GCSE has a reading age of 17!?)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the triangulation of different assessments is crucial, as well as the careful planning of internal assessments to reduce error and increase reliability. Several factors are at play here such as schools being clear about their assessment policy overall, but acknowledging that assessments may need to be different in different subject areas.
In addition, assessments being fit for purpose so sometimes low stakes activities, frequently repeated. Accurate feedback to students is imperative and when used effectively this helps to consolidate their knowledge base, and build their confidence in that subject area.

# data[].attributes.body
As the article suggests, the higher the stakes for the students, the greater the reliability should be. Thus factors negatively affecting reliability should be reduced for higher stakes testing. An example of this might be the sitting of mocks in full exams conditions to reduce environmental factors that influence reliability.

# data[].attributes.body
If tests are such high stakes then multiple sources and pieces should be sought. Triangulation, as already suggested would support this. Of course - keeping the construct consistent.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the only way to increase reliability is to use triangulation, rather than single piece of assessment. Situations in which reliability is not essential is when you are using the assessment as a teaching tool e.g. to help students identify gaps in their own revision/knowledge-the Evaluation is self driven.