MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412085058 · doi:10.3390/jintelligence13070082

The Value of Individual Screen Response Time in Predicting Student Test Performance: Evidence from TIMSS 2019 Problem Solving and Inquiry Tasks

2025· article· en· W4412085058 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive powerTest (biology)Response timePredictive valuePsychologyStatisticsItem response theoryValue (mathematics)Mathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyMathematicsComputer sciencePsychometricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time students spend on answering a test item (i.e., response time) and its relationship to performance can vary significantly from one item to another. Thus, using total or average response time across all items to predict overall test performance may lead to a loss of information, particularly with respect to within-person variability, which refers to fluctuations in a student's standardized response times across different items. This study aims to demonstrate the predictive and explanatory value of including within-person variability in predicting and explaining students' test scores. The data came from 13,829 fourth-grade students who completed the mathematics portion of Problem Solving and Inquiry (PSI) tasks in the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In this assessment, students navigated through a sequence of interactive screens, each containing one or more related items, while response time was recorded at the screen level. This study used a profile analysis approach to show that students' standardized response times-used as a practical approximation of item-level timing-varied substantially across screens, indicating within-person variability. We further decompose the predictive power of response time for overall test performance into pattern effect (the predictive power of within-person variability in response time) and level effect (the predictive power of the average response time). Results show that the pattern effect significantly outweighed the level effect, indicating that most of the predictive power of response time comes from within-person variability. Additionally, each screen response time had unique predictive power for performance, with the relationship varying in strength and direction. This finding suggests that fine-grained response time data can provide more information to infer the response processes of students in the test. Cross-validation and analyses across different achievement groups confirmed the consistency of results regarding the predictive and explanatory value of within-person variability. These findings offer implications for the design and administration of future educational assessments, highlighting the potential benefits of collecting and analyzing more fine-grained response time data as a predictor of test performance.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.343 · 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