Validation as Evaluating Desired and Undesired Effects: Insights From Cross‐Classified Mixed Effects Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Cross‐Classified Mixed Effects Model (CCMEM) has been demonstrated to be a flexible framework for evaluating reliability by measurement specialists. Reliability can be estimated based on the variance components of the test scores. Built upon their accomplishment, this study extends the CCMEM to be used for evaluating validity evidence. Validity is viewed as the coherence among the elements of a measurement system. As such, validity can be evaluated by the user‐reasoned desired or undesired fixed and random effects. Based on the data of ePIRLS 2016 Reading Assessment, we demonstrate how to obtain evidence for reliability and validity by CCMEM. We conclude with a discussion on the practicality and benefits of this validation method.
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 | 0.447 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".