Estimating Between-Person and Within-Person Subscore Reliability with Profile Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subscores are of increasing interest in educational and psychological testing due to their diagnostic function for evaluating examinees' strengths and weaknesses within particular domains of knowledge. Previous studies about the utility of subscores have mostly focused on the overall reliability of individual subscores and ignored the fact that subscores should be distinct and have added value over the total score. This study introduces a profile reliability approach that partitions the overall subscore reliability into within-person and between-person subscore reliability. The estimation of between-person reliability and within-person reliability coefficients is demonstrated using subscores from number-correct scoring, unidimensional and multidimensional item response theory scoring, and augmented scoring approaches via a simulation study and a real data study. The effects of various testing conditions, such as subtest length, correlations among subscores, and the number of subtests, are examined. Results indicate that there is a substantial trade-off between within-person and between-person reliability of subscores. Profile reliability coefficients can be useful in determining the extent to which subscores provide distinct and reliable information under various testing conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".