Incorporating test-taking engagement into the item selection algorithm in low-stakes computerized adaptive tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In low-stakes assessment settings, students’ performance is not only influenced by students’ ability level but also their test-taking engagement. In computerized adaptive tests (CATs), disengaged responses (e.g., rapid guesses) that fail to reflect students’ true ability levels may lead to the selection of less informative items and thereby contaminate item selection and ability estimation procedures. To date, researchers have developed various approaches to detect and remove disengaged responses after test administration is completed to alleviate the negative impact of low test-taking engagement on test scores. This study proposes an alternative item selection method based on Maximum Fisher Information (MFI) that considers test-taking engagement as a secondary latent trait to select the most optimal items based on both ability and engagement. The results of post-hoc simulation studies indicated that the proposed method could optimize item selection and improve the accuracy of final ability estimates, especially for low-ability students. Overall, the proposed method showed great promise for tailoring CATs based on test-taking engagement. Practitioners are encouraged to consider incorporating engagement into the item selection algorithm to enhance the validity of inferences made from low-stakes CATs.
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 | 0.040 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".