MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043112308 · doi:10.2466/03.pr0.107.5.535-546

Scale Validation via Quantifying Item Validity Using the <i> D <sub>m</sub> </i> Index

2010· article· en· W2043112308 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriterion validityPsychologyConstruct validityScale (ratio)Index (typography)StatisticsExternal validityTest validityItem response theoryPsychometricsComputer scienceSocial psychologyMathematicsClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While most validity indices are based on total test scores, this paper describes a method for quantifying the construct validity of items. The approach is based on the item selection technique originally described by Piazza in 1980. Unfortunately, Piazza's P2 index suffers from some substantial limitations. The Dm coefficient provides an alternative which can be used for item selection and provides a validity index for a set of items. The index is similar to that of traditional criterion-related validity indices. Criterion-related validity is used to demonstrate the accuracy of hypothesized relations of the measure with outcome variables of interest in research and practice. This method may be useful when the sample of items or persons is small, rendering more traditional approaches such as factor analysis or item response theory inappropriate. An example of how to use the technique is provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.633
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.115 · 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