A Psychometric Network Analysis Approach for Detecting Item Wording Effects in Self-report Measures across Subgroups
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explored psychometric network analysis (PNA) as an alternative method for identifying item wording effects in self-report instruments. We examined the functioning of negatively worded items in the network structures of two math-related scales from the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); Students Like Learning in Mathematics (SLLM); and Students Confident in Mathematics (SCM). We also explored how the negatively worded items functioned in network structures across demographic subgroups. Data were drawn from eight countries that represented diverse levels of math performance and cultural attitudes toward school ( n = 75,972). We found that negatively worded items were distinct from the positively worded items in the SLLM and SCM item networks, and that this effect was consistent across all age- and country-level subgroups. Based on these findings, we recommend PNA as a data-driven approach for detecting wording effects effectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it