MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125797924 · doi:10.1207/s15328023top2801_03

Difficulty and Discriminability of Introductory Psychology Test Items

2001· article· en· W2125797924 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

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsKeyano CollegeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTest (biology)Class (philosophy)Multiple choiceMathematics educationSocial psychologySignificant differenceApplied psychologyStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed multiple-choice questions provided in test banks for introductory psychology textbooks. In Study 1, we found that about 70% of students responded correctly to a given item, and there was a significant but inconsistent difference in difficulty across chapter topics. In Study 2, a single class of introductory psychology students took comprehensive exams of randomly selected test items that varied in estimated difficulty. As before, chapter topic had a significant, yet inconsistent effect, but test items had several desirable properties compared to Study 1. These data allow several recommendations for instructors who want to improve the characteristics of the multiple-choice exams they use.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.369 · 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