A Team Effort

Imagine this fantasy scenario. United States Olympic Gymnast Misty Martinez is prepping for her last competition of this year’s Olympic Games, which has reverted to a one-judge format. Already leading her division, a 9.5 score or higher would earn her the Gold Medal that she’s been working towards her entire life. Her name is called, her music hits and off she goes.

A glorious 68 seconds later, it’s all over and Misty couldn’t be prouder. Her coaching staff, loved ones and fans are elated, as her final performance of the year appeared to be flawless. 

Sadly, Misty’s spirit is quickly crushed by the lone judge’s score: 8.7.  No one watching in the building or anywhere around the world could understand exactly what happened. Was the judge fatigued from a long day of scoring? Did he carry a subconscious bias against Misty based on ethnicity, gender or something random? Was Misty’s modern style not the elderly judge’s cup of tea?

Misty will never know exactly why her efforts were judged so harshly that fateful day. All she knows is that her dreams were shattered… not by a balanced and diverse array of feedback, but by one person’s uncontested point-of-view.

Two (Or More) Heads Are Better Than One

The example above is pure fiction, but it certainly strikes a chord with any of us whom understand the risks of assigning authority to one person.  Regardless of experience, intelligence or amassed knowledge, no human is completely capable of making decisions without bias or limitations.  In fact, many believe that gathering the opinions of people with diverse points-of-view is the only way to judge something fairly.
“The Wisdom Of Crowds.”

In 2004, James Surowiecki made waves with “The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations.” In the book, Surowiecki argues that evaluations and problem-solving are best handled by groups, resulting in decisions that are more well-rounded (and therefore, superior) compared to anything that could be produced by a single expert. 

This may seem like a surprising philosophy to those who believe that “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Surowiecki immediately illustrates his point with the book’s opening anecdote about Sir Francis Galton, a statistician who came across a contest at a country fair in which attendees were invited to guess an ox’s weight.  

Once the contest was over, Galton calculated the average number derived from nearly 800 guesses and discovered that it was 1,197 pounds… just one pound less than the ox’s actual weight. Despite a variety of expert guesses submitted in this contest, it was the collective thoughts and opinions of all participants that came closest to guessing the accurate answer. 

The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum Of Its Parts

Time has proven that a diverse collection of minds is more reliable than a single individual.From court juries to trios of judges on reality competition TV shows, our society is confortable respecting the opinions of a trustworthy group, and this logic is the basis for IntelliMetric’s unique six-judge scoring model. 

Why Is IntelliMetric’s Automated Essay Scoring Model Better Than The Rest?

Instead of relying on one expert approach to scoring, IntelliMetric draws from six diverse perspectives, preventing any one subjective opinion from swaying feedback in any one direction.

Here are three important reasons why IntelliMetric’s unique Automated Essay-Scoring model is superior to other tools’ one-judge format.

• Reliability - Decades of research reinforce the notion that multiple judgments produce more accurate results than just one.  This proven success leads to confidence that we can depend on IntelliMetric’s ability to produce fair, consistent scores time and time again.
• Balance – IntelliMetric provides a multifaceted perspective that draws from six divergent points-of-view. This neutralizes any biases that individual judges might have based on personal opinions, cultural exposure or knowledge limitations. While each judge’s specialties are taken into account, this system ensures that none outweigh the others.
• Contextual Patrolling – Content that veers off-topic or is subtly flawed may be missed by one scorer, but not by six. With a group of expert approaches all looking at content from slightly different perspectives, any problems or inconsistencies are much more likely to be identified.

IntelliMetric: Your Best Choice for Automated Essay Scoring 

IntelliMetric uses Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU) to evaluate numerous essays in mere seconds. If using other automated essay-scoring platforms is like adding an expert to your team, IntelliMetric is like adding an entire committee that will fairly review each submission with a fine-toothed comb, leaving you with an unparalleled level of insight into the writer’s skills and qualifications.