Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35754615›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2022

Polytomous Testlet Response Models for Technology-Enhanced Innovative Items: Implications on Model Fit and Trait Inference.

Hyeon-Ah Kang, Suhwa Han, Doyoung Kim, Shu-Chuan Kao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2022. 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

4 authors.

Hyeon-Ah KangUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4496-6467
Suhwa HanUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Doyoung KimNational Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shu-Chuan KaoNational Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of technology-enhanced innovative items calls for practical models that can describe polytomous testlet items. In this study, we evaluate four measurement models that can characterize polytomous items administered in testlets: (a) generalized partial credit model (GPCM), (b) testlet-as-a-polytomous-item model (TPIM), (c) random-effect testlet model (RTM), and (d) fixed-effect testlet model (FTM). Using data from GPCM, FTM, and RTM, we examine performance of the scoring models in multiple aspects: relative model fit, absolute item fit, significance of testlet effects, parameter recovery, and classification accuracy. The empirical analysis suggests that relative performance of the models varies substantially depending on the testlet-effect type, effect size, and trait estimator. When testlets had no or fixed effects, GPCM and FTM led to most desirable measurement outcomes. When testlets had random interaction effects, RTM demonstrated best model fit and yet showed substantially different performance in the trait recovery depending on the estimator. In particular, the advantage of RTM as a scoring model was discernable only when there existed strong random effects and the trait levels were estimated with Bayes priors. In other settings, the simpler models (i.e., GPCM, FTM) performed better or comparably. The study also revealed that polytomous scoring of testlet items has limited prospect as a functional scoring method. Based on the outcomes of the empirical evaluation, we provide practical guidelines for choosing a measurement model for polytomous innovative items that are administered in testlets.

Indexed as

innovative itemsitem response theorypolytomous itemstechnology-enhanced assessmenttestlet

Identifiers

PMID35754615
PMCPMC9228694

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.