Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32138312›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2020

Tracking with (Un)Certainty.

Abe D Hofman, Matthieu J S Brinkhuis, Maria Bolsinova, Jonathan Klaiber, Gunter Maris, Han L J van der Maas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Tracking a multitude of abilities as they develop.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Abe D HofmanDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4269-5296
Matthieu J S BrinkhuisInformation and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1054-6683
Maria BolsinovaACTNext, IowaCity, 52243, United States of America.
Jonathan KlaiberOefenweb, 1011 VL Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gunter MarisACTNext, IowaCity, 52243, United States of America.
Han L J van der MaasDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the highest ambitions in educational technology is the move towards personalized learning. To this end, computerized adaptive learning (CAL) systems are developed. A popular method to track the development of student ability and item difficulty, in CAL systems, is the Elo Rating System (ERS). The ERS allows for dynamic model parameters by updating key parameters after every response. However, drawbacks of the ERS are that it does not provide standard errors and that it results in rating variance inflation. We identify three statistical issues responsible for both of these drawbacks. To solve these issues we introduce a new tracking system based on urns, where every person and item is represented by an urn filled with a combination of green and red marbles. Urns are updated, by an exchange of marbles after each response, such that the proportions of green marbles represent estimates of person ability or item difficulty. A main advantage of this approach is that the standard errors are known, hence the method allows for statistical inference, such as testing for learning effects. We highlight features of the Urnings algorithm and compare it to the popular ERS in a simulation study and in an empirical data example from a large-scale CAL application.

Indexed as

computerized adaptive learning systemsstatistical inferencesstudent modellingtracking

Identifiers

PMID32138312
PMCPMC7151223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.