Modeling human coding of free response data

•The AUTOCODER system for coding free response data is described and reviewed.•Coding performance of the AUTOCODER system with a human-expert gold-standard.•On test data, AUTOCODER agreement with human-expert gold-standard was acceptable.•Strengths and limitations of AUTOCODER are compared with rela...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Computers in human behavior 2013-11, Vol.29 (6), p.2394-2403
Hauptverfasser: Ghiasinejad, Shahram, Golden, Richard M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2403
container_issue 6
container_start_page 2394
container_title Computers in human behavior
container_volume 29
creator Ghiasinejad, Shahram
Golden, Richard M.
description •The AUTOCODER system for coding free response data is described and reviewed.•Coding performance of the AUTOCODER system with a human-expert gold-standard.•On test data, AUTOCODER agreement with human-expert gold-standard was acceptable.•Strengths and limitations of AUTOCODER are compared with related methods. Summarization, recall, think-aloud, and question–answering protocol data are examples of free response verbal reports used for the purposes of revealing the structure and content of internal mental representations and processes within the field of discourse processes. Typically, two experienced coders independently semantically annotate a portion of collected protocol data and measures of agreement are used to determine the reliability of the coding. This methodology, however, does not provide an effective method for communicating in an unambiguous manner complex coding procedures to other researchers. To address this problem, an automated methodology called AUTOCODER for coding free response data is evaluated. The AUTOCODER system works by actively interacting with an experienced human coder who semantically annotates key words with “word-concepts” and sequences of word-concepts with “propositions”. After training AUTOCODER on a set of 70 segmented and semantically annotated free response verbal reports originally generated by second grade and fifth grade students, AUTOCODER exhibited a good proposition agreement rate of 91% and a kappa agreement score of 65% with respect to an experienced human coder on an additional set of 24 unsegmented free response verbal reports. Limitations and general implications of these findings are also discussed.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551067028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0747563213001726</els_id><sourcerecordid>1464563856</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-ee1aab596409c904938c9910b302190b39be08f0962c961fe2c135e7eeb935373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUE1LxDAUDKLguvoDvPUoSOt7TZM2eJLFL1jxoueQpq9ulm6zJl3Bf2-W9ayHx_BgZpgZxi4RCgSUN-vCrtqiBOQFiAJKPGIzbGqe11KVx2wGdVXnQvLylJ3FuAYAIUDO2PWL72hw40e22m3MmFnf7R_fZ30gygLFrR8jZZ2ZzDk76c0Q6eIX5-z94f5t8ZQvXx-fF3fL3HIUU06ExrRCyQqUVVAp3lilEFqeYqkEqiVoelCytEpiT6VFLqgmahUXvOZzdnXw3Qb_uaM46Y2LlobBjOR3UaMQCLKGsvmfWskqtW7SzRkeqDb4GAP1ehvcxoRvjaD3G-q1Thvq_YYahE5hk-b2oKFU98tR0NE6Gi11LpCddOfdH-ofYWV2hw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1464563856</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Modeling human coding of free response data</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ghiasinejad, Shahram ; Golden, Richard M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ghiasinejad, Shahram ; Golden, Richard M.</creatorcontrib><description>•The AUTOCODER system for coding free response data is described and reviewed.•Coding performance of the AUTOCODER system with a human-expert gold-standard.•On test data, AUTOCODER agreement with human-expert gold-standard was acceptable.•Strengths and limitations of AUTOCODER are compared with related methods. Summarization, recall, think-aloud, and question–answering protocol data are examples of free response verbal reports used for the purposes of revealing the structure and content of internal mental representations and processes within the field of discourse processes. Typically, two experienced coders independently semantically annotate a portion of collected protocol data and measures of agreement are used to determine the reliability of the coding. This methodology, however, does not provide an effective method for communicating in an unambiguous manner complex coding procedures to other researchers. To address this problem, an automated methodology called AUTOCODER for coding free response data is evaluated. The AUTOCODER system works by actively interacting with an experienced human coder who semantically annotates key words with “word-concepts” and sequences of word-concepts with “propositions”. After training AUTOCODER on a set of 70 segmented and semantically annotated free response verbal reports originally generated by second grade and fifth grade students, AUTOCODER exhibited a good proposition agreement rate of 91% and a kappa agreement score of 65% with respect to an experienced human coder on an additional set of 24 unsegmented free response verbal reports. Limitations and general implications of these findings are also discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0747-5632</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7692</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.021</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Autocoders ; Coders ; Coding ; Computational model ; Hidden Markov model ; Human ; Human behavior ; Methodology ; Propositional coding ; Protocol data analysis ; Quality ; Students</subject><ispartof>Computers in human behavior, 2013-11, Vol.29 (6), p.2394-2403</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-ee1aab596409c904938c9910b302190b39be08f0962c961fe2c135e7eeb935373</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563213001726$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ghiasinejad, Shahram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Richard M.</creatorcontrib><title>Modeling human coding of free response data</title><title>Computers in human behavior</title><description>•The AUTOCODER system for coding free response data is described and reviewed.•Coding performance of the AUTOCODER system with a human-expert gold-standard.•On test data, AUTOCODER agreement with human-expert gold-standard was acceptable.•Strengths and limitations of AUTOCODER are compared with related methods. Summarization, recall, think-aloud, and question–answering protocol data are examples of free response verbal reports used for the purposes of revealing the structure and content of internal mental representations and processes within the field of discourse processes. Typically, two experienced coders independently semantically annotate a portion of collected protocol data and measures of agreement are used to determine the reliability of the coding. This methodology, however, does not provide an effective method for communicating in an unambiguous manner complex coding procedures to other researchers. To address this problem, an automated methodology called AUTOCODER for coding free response data is evaluated. The AUTOCODER system works by actively interacting with an experienced human coder who semantically annotates key words with “word-concepts” and sequences of word-concepts with “propositions”. After training AUTOCODER on a set of 70 segmented and semantically annotated free response verbal reports originally generated by second grade and fifth grade students, AUTOCODER exhibited a good proposition agreement rate of 91% and a kappa agreement score of 65% with respect to an experienced human coder on an additional set of 24 unsegmented free response verbal reports. Limitations and general implications of these findings are also discussed.</description><subject>Autocoders</subject><subject>Coders</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>Computational model</subject><subject>Hidden Markov model</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Human behavior</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Propositional coding</subject><subject>Protocol data analysis</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Students</subject><issn>0747-5632</issn><issn>1873-7692</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUE1LxDAUDKLguvoDvPUoSOt7TZM2eJLFL1jxoueQpq9ulm6zJl3Bf2-W9ayHx_BgZpgZxi4RCgSUN-vCrtqiBOQFiAJKPGIzbGqe11KVx2wGdVXnQvLylJ3FuAYAIUDO2PWL72hw40e22m3MmFnf7R_fZ30gygLFrR8jZZ2ZzDk76c0Q6eIX5-z94f5t8ZQvXx-fF3fL3HIUU06ExrRCyQqUVVAp3lilEFqeYqkEqiVoelCytEpiT6VFLqgmahUXvOZzdnXw3Qb_uaM46Y2LlobBjOR3UaMQCLKGsvmfWskqtW7SzRkeqDb4GAP1ehvcxoRvjaD3G-q1Thvq_YYahE5hk-b2oKFU98tR0NE6Gi11LpCddOfdH-ofYWV2hw</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Ghiasinejad, Shahram</creator><creator>Golden, Richard M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Modeling human coding of free response data</title><author>Ghiasinejad, Shahram ; Golden, Richard M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-ee1aab596409c904938c9910b302190b39be08f0962c961fe2c135e7eeb935373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Autocoders</topic><topic>Coders</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>Computational model</topic><topic>Hidden Markov model</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Human behavior</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Propositional coding</topic><topic>Protocol data analysis</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ghiasinejad, Shahram</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Richard M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Computers in human behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ghiasinejad, Shahram</au><au>Golden, Richard M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Modeling human coding of free response data</atitle><jtitle>Computers in human behavior</jtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>2394</spage><epage>2403</epage><pages>2394-2403</pages><issn>0747-5632</issn><eissn>1873-7692</eissn><abstract>•The AUTOCODER system for coding free response data is described and reviewed.•Coding performance of the AUTOCODER system with a human-expert gold-standard.•On test data, AUTOCODER agreement with human-expert gold-standard was acceptable.•Strengths and limitations of AUTOCODER are compared with related methods. Summarization, recall, think-aloud, and question–answering protocol data are examples of free response verbal reports used for the purposes of revealing the structure and content of internal mental representations and processes within the field of discourse processes. Typically, two experienced coders independently semantically annotate a portion of collected protocol data and measures of agreement are used to determine the reliability of the coding. This methodology, however, does not provide an effective method for communicating in an unambiguous manner complex coding procedures to other researchers. To address this problem, an automated methodology called AUTOCODER for coding free response data is evaluated. The AUTOCODER system works by actively interacting with an experienced human coder who semantically annotates key words with “word-concepts” and sequences of word-concepts with “propositions”. After training AUTOCODER on a set of 70 segmented and semantically annotated free response verbal reports originally generated by second grade and fifth grade students, AUTOCODER exhibited a good proposition agreement rate of 91% and a kappa agreement score of 65% with respect to an experienced human coder on an additional set of 24 unsegmented free response verbal reports. Limitations and general implications of these findings are also discussed.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.021</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0747-5632
ispartof Computers in human behavior, 2013-11, Vol.29 (6), p.2394-2403
issn 0747-5632
1873-7692
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1551067028
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Autocoders
Coders
Coding
Computational model
Hidden Markov model
Human
Human behavior
Methodology
Propositional coding
Protocol data analysis
Quality
Students
title Modeling human coding of free response data
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T11%3A19%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Modeling%20human%20coding%20of%20free%20response%20data&rft.jtitle=Computers%20in%20human%20behavior&rft.au=Ghiasinejad,%20Shahram&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2394&rft.epage=2403&rft.pages=2394-2403&rft.issn=0747-5632&rft.eissn=1873-7692&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1464563856%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1464563856&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0747563213001726&rfr_iscdi=true