English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A common problem that arises in testing-as well as other contexts such as candidate selection-is how to combine various scores into a weighted composite that reflects expert judgments about each component's relative importance. For experts to provide nominal weights explicitly, they must fully account for the variances of the components, the covariances among components, and the reliability of each component. This task can be challenging, and in many cases, experts may have greater success making simple judgments about component importance without regard for the variances, covariances, and reliabilities. In this article, it is shown how to estimate the requisite nominal weights when only these kinds of naïve judgments are available, and the analytical solution is demonstrated with a small simulation study. Results from the simulation suggest that the proposed estimators could yield more valid composite scores in practice.

Weighting Components of a Composite Score Using Naïve Expert Judgments About Their Relative Importance