MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590325518 · doi:10.1177/0146621617692079

Plausible-Value Imputation Statistics for Detecting Item Misfit

2017· article· en· W2590325518 on OpenAlexaff
R. Philip Chalmers, Victoria Ka Yin Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psychological Measurement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsStatisticItem response theoryTraitImputation (statistics)EconometricsParametric statisticsTest statisticMathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingDifferential item functioningLatent variable modelItem analysisNull hypothesisLatent variableComputer sciencePsychometricsMissing data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When tests consist of a small number of items, the use of latent trait estimates for secondary analyses is problematic. One area in particular where latent trait estimates have been problematic is when testing for item misfit. This article explores the use of plausible-value imputations to lessen the severity of the inherent measurement unreliability in shorter tests, and proposes a parametric bootstrap procedure to generate empirical sampling characteristics for null-hypothesis tests of item fit. Simulation results suggest that the proposed item-fit statistics provide conservative to nominal error detection rates. Power to detect item misfit tended to be less than Stone’s [Formula: see text] item-fit statistic but higher than the [Formula: see text] statistic proposed by Orlando and Thissen, especially in tests with 20 or more dichotomously scored items.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.553
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.553
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.722
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Psychological MeasurementSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207