MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568498297 · doi:10.1177/0013164416685599

Retrofitting Diagnostic Classification Models to Responses From IRT-Based Assessment Forms

2017· article· en· W2568498297 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 and Psychological Measurement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingItem response theoryComputer scienceProcess (computing)Test (biology)Data miningEngineeringPsychometricsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing a diagnostic tool within the diagnostic measurement framework is the optimal approach to obtain multidimensional and classification-based feedback on examinees. However, end users may seek to obtain diagnostic feedback from existing item responses to assessments that have been designed under either the classical test theory or item response theory frameworks. Retrofitting diagnostic classification models to existing assessments designed under other psychometric frameworks could be a plausible approach to obtain more actionable scores or understand more about the constructs themselves. This study (a) discusses the possibility and problems of retrofitting, (b) proposes a step-by-step retrofitting framework, and (c) explores the information one can gain from retrofitting through an empirical application example. While retrofitting may not always be an ideal approach to diagnostic measurement, this article aims to invite discussions through presenting the possibility, challenges, process, and product of retrofitting.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.878
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.309 · 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