An explanatory mixture <scp>IRT</scp> model for careless and insufficient effort responding in self‐report measures
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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".