MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956271099 · doi:10.1111/jedm.12207

Performance of Person‐Fit Statistics Under Model Misspecification

2019· article· en· W2956271099 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

VenueJournal of Educational Measurement · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticEconometricsItem response theoryInferenceLatent variableLatent variable modelParametric statisticsStatisticsStatistical inferenceGoodness of fitParametric modelComputer scienceVariable (mathematics)SpecificationEmpirical researchAggregate (composite)MathematicsPsychometricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In educational and psychological measurement, a person‐fit statistic (PFS) is designed to identify aberrant response patterns. For parametric PFSs, valid inference depends on several assumptions, one of which is that the item response theory (IRT) model is correctly specified. Previous studies have used empirical data sets to explore the effects of model misspecification on PFSs. We further this line of research by using a simulation study, which allows us to explore issues that may be of interest to practitioners. Results show that, depending on the generating and analysis item models, Type I error rates at fixed values of the latent variable may be greatly inflated, even when the aggregate rates are relatively accurate. Results also show that misspecification is most likely to affect PFSs for examinees with extreme latent variable scores. Two empirical data analyses are used to illustrate the importance of model specification.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.753
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.273 · 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