An explanatory mixture <scp>IRT</scp> model for careless and insufficient effort responding in self‐report measures
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
Careless and insufficient effort responding (C/IER) on self-report measures results in responses that do not reflect the trait to be measured, thereby posing a major threat to the quality of survey data. Reliable approaches for detecting C/IER aid in increasing the validity of inferences being made from survey data. First, once detected, C/IER can be taken into account in data analysis. Second, approaches for detecting C/IER support a better understanding of its occurrence, which facilitates designing surveys that curb the prevalence of C/IER. Previous approaches for detecting C/IER are limited in that they identify C/IER at the aggregate respondent or scale level, thereby hindering investigations of item characteristics evoking C/IER. We propose an explanatory mixture item response theory model that supports identifying and modelling C/IER at the respondent-by-item level, can detect a wide array of C/IER patterns, and facilitates a deeper understanding of item characteristics associated with its occurrence. As the approach only requires raw response data, it is applicable to data from paper-and-pencil and online surveys. The model shows good parameter recovery and can well handle the simultaneous occurrence of multiple types of C/IER patterns in simulated data. The approach is illustrated on a publicly available Big Five inventory data set, where we found later item positions to be associated with higher C/IER probabilities. We gathered initial supporting validity evidence for the proposed approach by investigating agreement with multiple commonly employed indicators of C/IER.
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 | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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