Minimizing the Influence of Item Parameter Estimation Errors in Test Development: A Comparison of Three Selection Procedures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In test development, item response theory (IRT) is a method to determine the amount of information that each item (i.e., item information function) and combination of items (i.e., test information function) provide in the estimation of an examinee's ability. Studies investigating the effects of item parameter estimation errors over a range of ability have demonstrated an overestimation of information when the most discriminating items are selected (i.e., item selection based on maximum information). In the present study, the authors examined the influence of item parameter estimation errors across 3 item selection methods—maximum no target, maximum target, and theta maximum—using the 2- and 3-parameter logistic IRT models. Tests created with the maximum no target and maximum target item selection procedures consistently overestimated the test information function. Conversely, tests created using the theta maximum item selection procedure yielded more consistent estimates of the test information function and, at times, underestimated the test information function. Implications for test development are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it