Uncovering adults' problem‐solving patterns from process data with hidden Markov model and network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Process data captured by computer‐based assessments provide valuable insight into respondents' cognitive processes during problem‐solving tasks. Although previous studies have utilized process data to analyse behavioural patterns or strategies in problem‐solving tasks, the connection between latent cognitive states and their theoretical interpretation in problem solving remains unclear. Objectives This research aims to investigate the connections between similar hidden response states and unfold respondents' transition paths in problem‐solving processes. Analysing process data from the 2012 United States Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), this study seeks to discern patterns in problem solving among participants. Methods The hidden Markov model was first used to uncover the hidden states based on a sequence of observed actions. Next, Gaussian graphical network analysis was employed to analyse the relationships between hidden response states. Results and Conclusions Results indicated that correct responders had simpler, clearer state relationships, while incorrect responders displayed more complex connections. Respondents who solved the tasks correctly had clearer thoughts about the problem‐solving process, whereas incorrect respondents struggled to understand the problem and failed to figure out solutions. Cognitive state changes during problem solving also varied between groups. The correct groups showed cohesive, logical transitions, in contrast to the emerged isolated, erratic patterns of the incorrect groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".