MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383227026 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/zc98s

Utilizing Response Time for Scoring the TIMSS 2019 Problem Solving and Inquiry Tasks

2023· preprint· en· W4383227026 on OpenAlexaff
Okan Bulut, Guher Gorgun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyNormativeItem response theoryTime limitPolytomous Rasch modelMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychometricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In low-stakes assessments with a strict time limit, some students may fail to reach the end of the test and leave some items unanswered due to various reasons, such as fatigue and lack of test-taking motivation, which are referred to as not-reached items (NRIs). NRIs were ubiquitous in the Problem Solving and Inquiry (PSI) portion of eTIMSS 2019, as many students could not reach all PSI items because they either ran out of time or stopped responding to the items. When calibrating test items using an item response theory (IRT) model, there are several methods for dealing with NRIs, such as treating them as not-administered or scoring them as incorrect. However, research shows that these methods may yield undesirable outcomes, such as biased estimates of item and person parameters. To deal with NRIs more effectively, additional data retrieved from computer-based can be considered to develop a new scoring rule that adjusts test scores for NRIs based on students’ response behaviors. In this study, we utilize item response times (RTs) to create a scoring procedure for the PSI items in eTIMSS 2019. We employ the Normative Threshold method to determine RT thresholds for each item to identify three response behaviors: rapid guessing (i.e., answering an item with an unrealistically low RT), idling (i.e., lingering while solving an item and thereby wasting too much time), and optimal responding (i.e., balancing the speed and accuracy in responding to the items). Then, we transform the original item scores into polytomous scores depending on how accurately students answer them while optimally using the allotted time. This approach prioritizes correct responses with optimal responding over correct or incorrect responses with either rapid guessing or idle responding. Using the PSI math and science tasks for Grade 4, we investigate whether eTIMSS 2019 results would change if students’ test-taking behaviors were considered in scoring the PSI tasks. To address this goal, we evaluate how country rankings change between PSI scores based on the original item responses and the polytomous responses. The results that when the students’ response behaviors are considered (i.e., their response times are incorporated into the scoring process), the country rankings change after the top 10 countries in math. In contrast, the rankings change drastically for many countries in science. Changes in the rankings are associated with the number of NRIs and students’ response behaviors in each country. Additional analyses on the utility of RTs in scoring the PSI items showed that the polytomous responses from the first seven items could help test administrators with the early identification of students who are likely to have NRIs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207