Increasing the EEIC minimum from the value of six recommended by Harpp, Hogan, & Jennings
(1996) to ten would accomplish much the same result for the data sets used above.
These will be matters to explore further. In the meantime, one might ask why, given these findings, I would use Lertap’s H-H values at all? Convenience. Had I confirmed the Harpp, Hogan, & Jennings (1996) findings, Lertap 5.5 users would have an index of possible cheating ready to hand, with no need to resort to an additional program. As it is, it seems advisable for Lertap users wanting to gauge the extent of possible cheating to cross-check Lertap 5.5’s present H-H results with another program8.
Increasing the EEIC minimum from the value of six recommended by Harpp, Hogan, & Jennings
(1996) to ten would accomplish much the same result for the data sets used above.
These will be matters to explore further. In the meantime, one might ask why, given these findings, I would use Lertap’s H-H values at all? Convenience. Had I confirmed the Harpp, Hogan, & Jennings (1996) findings, Lertap 5.5 users would have an index of possible cheating ready to hand, with no need to resort to an additional program. As it is, it seems advisable for Lertap users wanting to gauge the extent of possible cheating to cross-check Lertap 5.5’s present H-H results with another program8.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..