MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137207467 · doi:10.1080/15305058.2014.977444

Explore the Usefulness of Person-Fit Analysis on Large-Scale Assessment

2014· article· en· W2137207467 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Testing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome SciencesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsItem response theoryScale (ratio)PsychologyEconometricsStatisticsPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThe current study applied the person-fit statistic, lz, to data from a Canadian provincial achievement test to explore the usefulness of conducting person-fit analysis on large-scale assessments. Item parameter estimates were compared before and after the misfitting student responses, as identified by lz, were removed. The changes of item parameter estimates were found to be noticeable for some items. In addition, analyses were conducted to identify student and class factors associated with misfitting responses. Hierarchical linear modeling was used due to the hierarchical structure of the data. Although student-level and class-level variables were found as statistically significant predictors of the degree of person-fit as indicated by the values of lz, the percentage of variability accounted for by these variables was considerably small—only 3.65%.Keywords: aberrant responding behaviorlarge-scale assessmentmisfitting response patternsperson-fitperson-fit statistics

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.195 · 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