Examination of Different Item Response Theory Models on Tests Composed of Testlets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to first estimate the item and ability parameters and the standard error values related to those parameters obtained from Unidimensional Item Response Theory (UIRT), bifactor (BIF) and Testlet Response Theory models (TRT) in the tests including testlets, when the number of testlets, number of independent items, and sample size change, and then to compare the obtained results. Mathematic test in PISA 2012 was employed as the data collection tool, and 36 items were used to constitute six different data sets containing different numbers of testlets and independent items. Subsequently, from these constituted data sets, three different sample sizes of 250, 500 and 1000 persons were selected randomly. When the findings of the research were examined, it was determined that, generally the lowest mean error values were those obtained from UIRT, and TRT yielded a mean of error estimation lower than that of BIF. It was found that, under all conditions, models which take into consideration the local dependency have provided a better model-data compatibility than UIRT, generally there is no meaningful difference between BIF and TRT, and both models can be used for those data sets. It can be said that when there is a meaningful difference between those two models, generally BIF yields a better result. In addition, it has been determined that, in each sample size and data set, item and ability parameters and correlations of errors of the parameters are generally high.
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 | 0.074 | 0.242 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".