MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033872871 · doi:10.3102/1076998613481500

A Two-Decision Model for Responses to Likert-Type Items

2013· article· en· W2033872871 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Thissen-Roe, David Thissen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsKronos (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleItem response theorySet (abstract data type)Decision modelEconometricsFunctional responseModel selectionResponse timeStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsMachine learningPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme response set, the tendency to prefer the lowest or highest response option when confronted with a Likert-type response scale, can lead to misfit of item response models such as the generalized partial credit model. Recently, a series of intrinsically multidimensional item response models have been hypothesized, wherein tendency toward extreme response set is simultaneously estimated alongside one or more psychological constructs of interest. The multidimensional nominal response model (MNRM) is a divide-by-total model that allows person parameters for response sets, including extreme response set. The proportional thresholds model (PTM) is a difference model with response set parameters. The present study introduces a two-decision model (TDM) as an alternative to the MNRM and PTM and compares all three on data from assessments used in employee selection.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.587
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.019 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Behavioral StatisticsSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207