MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169476270 · doi:10.1093/her/cyl108

Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: introducing item response modeling

2006· article· en· W2169476270 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsItem response theoryPolytomous Rasch modelRespondentPsychosocialComputer scienceApplied psychologySample (material)PsychometricsPsychologyScale (ratio)Data scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is the first of several papers designed to demonstrate how the application of item response models in the behavioral sciences can be used to enhance the conceptual and technical toolkit of researchers and developers and to understand better the psychometric properties of psychosocial measures. The papers all use baseline data from the Behavior Change Consortium data archive. This paper begins with an introduction to item response models, including both dichotomous and polytomous versions. The concepts of respondent and item location, model interpretation, standard errors and testing model fit are introduced and described. A sample analysis based on data from the self-efficacy scale is used to illustrate the concepts and techniques.

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)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.047 · 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