The Effect of Person Misfit on Item Parameter Estimation and Classification Accuracy: A Simulation Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Often, important decisions regarding accountability and placement of students in performance categories are made on the basis of test scores generated from tests, therefore, it is important to evaluate the validity of the inferences derived from test results. One of the threats to the validity of such inferences is aberrant responding. Several person fit indices were developed to detect aberrant responding on educational and psychological tests. The majority of the person fit literature has been focused on creating and evaluating new indices. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of aberrant responding on the accuracy of estimated item parameters and refining estimations by using person fit statistics by means of simulation. Our results showed that the presence of aberrant response patterns created bias in the both b and a parameters at the item level and affected the classification of students, particularly high-performing students, into performance categories regardless of whether aberrant response patterns were present in the data or were removed. The results differed by test length and the percentage of students with aberrant response patterns. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it