Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29951971›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2019

Higher-Order Asymptotics and Its Application to Testing the Equality of the Examinee Ability Over Two Sets of Items.

Sandip Sinharay, Jens Ledet Jensen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sandip SinharayEducational Testing Service, Princeton, USA. ssinharay@ets.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4491-8510
Jens Ledet JensenAarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In educational and psychological measurement, researchers and/or practitioners are often interested in examining whether the ability of an examinee is the same over two sets of items. Such problems can arise in measurement of change, detection of cheating on unproctored tests, erasure analysis, detection of item preknowledge, etc. Traditional frequentist approaches that are used in such problems include the Wald test, the likelihood ratio test, and the score test (e.g., Fischer, Appl Psychol Meas 27:3-26, 2003; Finkelman, Weiss, & Kim-Kang, Appl Psychol Meas 34:238-254, 2010; Glas & Dagohoy, Psychometrika 72:159-180, 2007; Guo & Drasgow, Int J Sel Assess 18:351-364, 2010; Klauer & Rettig, Br J Math Stat Psychol 43:193-206, 1990; Sinharay, J Educ Behav Stat 42:46-68, 2017). This paper shows that approaches based on higher-order asymptotics (e.g., Barndorff-Nielsen & Cox, Inference and asymptotics. Springer, London, 1994; Ghosh, Higher order asymptotics. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, 1994) can also be used to test for the equality of the examinee ability over two sets of items. The modified signed likelihood ratio test (e.g., Barndorff-Nielsen, Biometrika 73:307-322, 1986) and the Lugannani-Rice approximation (Lugannani & Rice, Adv Appl Prob 12:475-490, 1980), both of which are based on higher-order asymptotics, are shown to provide some improvement over the traditional frequentist approaches in three simulations. Two real data examples are also provided.

Indexed as

DeceptionEducational MeasurementModels, StatisticalHumansPsychometricsdetection of cheatingitem preknowledgemeasurement of change

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.