The analysis of TIMSS 2015 data with confirmatory mixture item response theory: A multidimensional approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we illustrated an application of the confirmatory mixture IRT model for multidimensional tests. We aimed to examine the differences in student performance by domains with a confirmatory mixture IRT modeling approach. A three-dimensional and three-class model was analyzed by assuming content domains as dimensions and cognitive domains as item groups. We estimated the item performance differences among the students through structural parameters. There were 463 students from Turkey and 880 students from Canada who participated in the TIMSS 2015 4th-grade mathematics assessment. Results for Turkey indicated, students in Class 2 had better performance in knowing and reasoning compared to those in Classes 1 and 3. Students in Class 2 and Class 3 were similar in applying math concepts compared to students in Class 1. For the Canadian sample, students in Class 2 had better performance in knowing, applying, and reasoning compared to those in Class 1 and 3. Also, Class 3 students were better at applying domain than Class 1. Also, mean values were obtained for all content domains in the two countries. Confirmatory mixture IRT modeling approaches appear to differentiate students’ mathematics competencies.
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 | 0.088 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".