MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Multidimensional Item Response Theory to Evaluate Educational and Psychological Tests

2003· article· en· W2170853093 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

VenueEducational Measurement Issues and Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsItem response theoryTest (biology)Measure (data warehouse)NinthComputer scienceProcess (computing)Meaning (existential)Multidimensional analysisPsychologyMathematics educationPsychometricsManagement scienceEconometricsMathematicsData miningDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many educational and psychological tests are inherently multidimensional, meaning these tests measure two or more dimensions or constructs. The purpose of this module is to illustrate how test practitioners and researchers can apply multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) to understand better what their tests are measuring, how accurately the different composites of ability are being assessed, and how this information can be cycled back into the test development process. Procedures for conducting MIRT analyses–from obtaining evidence that the test is multidimensional, to modeling the test as multidimensional, to illustrating the properties of multidimensional items graphically‐are described from both a theoretical and a substantive basis. This module also illustrates these procedures using data from a ninth‐grade mathematics achievement test. It concludes with a discussion of future directions in MIRT research.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.646
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.646
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.813
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.201 · 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