Latent variable models for harmonization of test scores: A case study on memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining data from different studies has a long tradition within the scientific community. It requires that the same information is collected from each study to be able to pool individual data. When studies have implemented different methods or used different instruments (e.g., questionnaires) for measuring the same characteristics or constructs, the observed variables need to be harmonized in some way to obtain equivalent content information across studies. This paper formulates the main concepts for harmonizing test scores from different observational studies in terms of latent variable models. The concepts are formulated in terms of calibration, invariance, and exchangeability. Although similar ideas are present in measurement reliability and test equating, harmonization is different from measurement invariance and generalizes test equating. In addition, if a test score needs to be transformed to another test score, harmonization of variables is only possible under specific conditions. Observed test scores that connect all of the different studies, are necessary to be able to test the underlying assumptions of harmonization. The concepts of harmonization are illustrated on multiple memory test scores from three different Canadian studies.
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 | 0.065 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".