ArticleApplied psychological measurement2019
Clarifying the Effect of Test Speededness.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The stability of cognitive abilities: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies.Psychological bulletin · 2024Pooled it
- A modified hidden Markov model for detecting insufficient effort responses in questionnaires.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality and reliability of the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) data in 2024.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Robust estimation of the latent trait in graded response models.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Should Intelligence Tests Be Speeded or Unspeeded? A Brief Review of the Effects of Time Pressure on Response Processes and an Experimental Study with Raven's Matrices.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Quantifying the Distorting Effect of Rapid Guessing on Estimates of Coefficient Αlpha.Applied psychological measurement · 2022Article
- Methods of Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding: Comparisons and Practical Recommendations.Educational and psychological measurement · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of high-stakes tests, test takers who do not have enough time to complete a test rush toward the end and may engage in speeded behavior when tests do not penalize guessing. Using mathematical derivations and simulations, previous research showed that random guessing responses should attenuate interitem correlations, and therefore, decrease estimates of reliability. Meanwhile, other researchers showed that random guessing could in fact inflate reliability estimates using real data. We provide analytical derivations on how speededness could affect correlations between two dichotomous items in multiple ways, depending on the manifestation and prevalence of test speededness. Furthermore, we provide two simulation studies that evaluate the magnitude of impact of test speededness on interitem correlations and Cronbach's alpha. We found that the impact of test speededness can vary between item pairs and that it depends on the manifestation of test speededness and item level characteristics. Furthermore, speeded responses will, in general, attenuate or not affect reliability estimates, depending on the prevalence of such responses and conceptual interpretation of speeded responses. Implications of the findings are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.