Analyzing Cognitive Demands of a Scientific Reasoning Test Using the Linear Logistic Test Model (LLTM)
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
The development and evaluation of valid assessments of scientific reasoning are an integral part of research in science education. In the present study, we used the linear logistic test model (LLTM) to analyze how item features related to text complexity and the presence of visual representations influence the overall item difficulty of an established, multiple-choice, scientific reasoning competencies assessment instrument. This study used data from n = 243 pre-service science teachers from Australia, Canada, and the UK. The findings revealed that text complexity and the presence of visual representations increased item difficulty and, in total, contributed to 32% of the variance in item difficulty. These findings suggest that the multiple-choice items contain the following cognitive demands: encoding, processing, and combining of textually presented information from different parts of the items and encoding, processing, and combining information that is presented in both the text and images. The present study adds to our knowledge of which cognitive demands are imposed upon by multiple-choice assessment instruments and whether these demands are relevant for the construct under investigation—in this case, scientific reasoning competencies. The findings are discussed and related to the relevant science education literature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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