Investigation of IRT-Based Equating Methods in the Presence of Outlier Common Items
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common items with inconsistent b-parameter estimates may have a serious impact on item response theory (IRT)—based equating results. To find a better way to deal with the outlier common items with inconsistent b-parameters, the current study investigated the comparability of 10 variations of four IRT-based equating methods (i.e., concurrent calibration, separate calibration with test characteristic curve [TCC] and mean/sigma [M/S] transformations, and calibration with fixed common item parameters [FCIP]) when outliers were either ignored or considered. Simulated data were generated for the common-item nonequivalent groups matrix design to reflect the manipulated factors: group ability differences and nonequivalent groups, number/score points of outliers, and types of outliers. When no outliers were present, the TCC and M/S transformations performed the best. When there were outliers, overall, the methods that considered them (except the M/S transformation with outliers weighted) resulted in a vast improvement compared to the methods that ignored them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.225 | 0.578 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".