Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35075157›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Bayesian modeling of item heterogeneity in dichotomous recognition memory data and prospects for computerized adaptive testing.

Jeremie Güsten, David Berron, Emrah Düzel, Gabriel Ziegler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jeremie GüstenGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, Germany. jeremie.guesten@med.ovgu.de.
David BerronGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, Germany.
Emrah Düzel *German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, Germany.
Gabriel Ziegler *German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft CRC 779 (TP A07)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most current models of recognition memory fail to separately model item and person heterogeneity which makes it difficult to assess ability at the latent construct level and prevents the administration of adaptive tests. Here we propose to employ a General Condorcet Model for Recognition (GCMR) in order to estimate ability, response bias and item difficulty in dichotomous recognition memory tasks. Using a Bayesian modeling framework and MCMC inference, we perform 3 separate validation studies comparing GCMR to the Rasch model from IRT and the 2-High-Threshold (2HT) recognition model. First, two simulations demonstrate that recovery of GCMR ability estimates with varying sparsity and test difficulty is more robust and that estimates improve from the two other models under common test scenarios. Then, using a real dataset, face validity is confirmed by replicating previous findings of general and domain-specific age effects (Güsten et al. in Cortex 137:138-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.12.017 , 2021). Using cross-validation we show better out-of-sample prediction for the GCMR as compared to Rasch and 2HT model. In addition, we present a hierarchical extension of the model that is able to estimate age- and domain-specific effects directly, without recurring to a two-stage procedure. Finally, an adaptive test using the GCMR is simulated, showing that the test length necessary to obtain reliable ability estimates can be significantly reduced compared to a non-adaptive procedure. The GCMR allows to model trial-by-trial performance and to increase the efficiency and reliability of recognition memory assessments.

Identifiers

PMID35075157
PMCPMC8786965

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.