MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100391776 · doi:10.1177/0146621606286206

The Effect of Examinee Motivation on Test Construction Within an IRT Framework

2006· article· en· W2100391776 on OpenAlexaff
Christina van Barneveld

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychological Measurement · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsItem response theoryTest (biology)PsychologyStatisticsEconometricsBayesian probabilityDifferential item functioningEquatingResponse biasComputerized adaptive testingLogistic regressionSocial psychologyMathematicsPsychometricsRasch model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a false assumption regarding the motivation of examinees on test construction. Simulated data were generated using two models of item responses (the three-parameter logistic item response model alone and in combination with Wise’s examinee persistence model) and were calibrated using a Bayesian method. For the conditions studied, biased item parameter estimates resulted from responses from poorly motivated examinees. Bias in item parameter estimates resulted in bias in item information estimates and test information estimates for an optimally constructed test. The direction and magnitude of the bias depended on conditions studied. The implications of the results for test development companies, examinees, and users of test results 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.

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)0.154
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.508
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1540.508
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.035 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Psychological MeasurementSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207