## 2 Related Work  
### Holistic and Analytic Rating Traits for Writing Assessment  
Writing assessment presents multifaceted challenges and relies heavily on subjective judgment, making it both time-consuming and demanding on human resources [30; 31; 32; 33; 34]. It is critical that human raters have a thorough understanding of the rating traits for scoring essays. The existing literature strongly advocates for the idea that a clear set of rating traits is critical to the validity of writing assessments. Without a clear framework, even the most experienced raters may be overwhelmed and unable to effectively measure the various dimensions of writing quality [35; 36]. Scholars have also highlighted how specific scoring traits can help raters and educators produce reliable scores and maintain consistency in assessments, thereby mitigating the risk of making premature judgments influenced by personal biases [37; 38]. Therefore, it is crucial to develop precise rating traits and their associated descriptors, which underpin the validity and reliability of writing assessments. Holistic and analytic rating traits have been adopted to identify writing proficiency for different purposes [39; 40]. Holistic scoring assigns a singular, comprehensive score to represent the quality of a sample essay. In contrast, analytic scoring evaluates essays through multiple sub-scales (e.g., _content_, _language_, and _organization_) that may or may not be averaged together to a total score [41]. Scholars have noted the efficiency of holistic scoring in educational and large-scale assessment settings, highlighting its cost-effectiveness and time-saving attributes [42; 43]. As a result, holistic scoring has gained widespread acceptance in the field of writing assessment over recent years. Its utility lies in that raters can assign a single score, sparing them the necessity of multiple readings to grasp the meaning of analytical traits. Although holistic scoring is widely adopted, it has been criticized for its use in the field of writing assessment and instruction. As critics point out, a notable limitation is that a single score fails to offer detailed feedback to students, particularly those struggling with writing, on the specific areas they need to improve. Additionally, it does not allow evaluators and educators to recognize and value the distinct characteristics that qualitatively differentiate one essay from another [44]. For example, two essays could be awarded the same overall score for vastly different reasons: one might be commended for its coherent structure, while the other could be celebrated for the sophistication of its sentence construction. Such instances illuminate a fundamental weakness: it may achieve substantial inter-rater reliability, but this comes at the potential cost of compromising the validity of writing assessment [33; 45; 46]. Depending on the purposes of writing assessment, analytic rating traits involve different aspects of writing quality: _vocabulary, content, grammar, register_, and _organization_[39; 47]. Analytic rating traits are often used to provide diagnostic information on students' writing proficiency and areas needing improvement [48]. For instance, a student might exhibit a strong command of syntax while struggling with essay organization. Therefore, an ever-increasing number of scholars have attached great importance to analytic rating traits in writing assessment due to their informative details and diagnostic feedback [49]. Despite the resource-intensive nature of analytic scoring, its advantages are compelling: firstly, it tends to yield more reliable scores compared to holistic scoring methods; secondly, it offers particular benefits for learners and students, whose writing skills may develop at varying paces across different constructs; thirdly, it facilitates more targeted and effective rater training and writing instruction; and fourthly, it is less prone to validity concerns, making it a robust choice for assessing writing quality [33; 50; 51; 52].