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

Plausible-Value Imputation Statistics for Detecting Item Misfit

2017· article· en· W2590325518 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

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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.129
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.722
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