ArticleApplied psychological measurement2023
Modeling Rapid Guessing Behaviors in Computer-Based Testlet Items.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling local dependencies in accuracy and speed: A mixture hierarchical modeling approach.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A general dynamic learning model framework for cognitive diagnosis.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2025Article
- Human ratings take time: A hierarchical facets model for the joint analysis of ratings and rating times.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- 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
- Testing Replicability and Generalizability of the Time on Task Effect.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In traditional test models, test items are independent, and test-takers slowly and thoughtfully respond to each test item. However, some test items have a common stimulus (dependent test items in a testlet), and sometimes test-takers lack motivation, knowledge, or time (speededness), so they perform rapid guessing (RG). Ignoring the dependence in responses to testlet items can negatively bias standard errors of measurement, and ignoring RG by fitting a simpler item response theory (IRT) model can bias the results. Because computer-based testing captures response times on testlet responses, we propose a mixture testlet IRT model with item responses and response time to model RG behaviors in computer-based testlet items. Two simulation studies with Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation using the JAGS program showed (a) good recovery of the item and person parameters in this new model and (b) the harmful consequences of ignoring RG (biased parameter estimates: overestimated item difficulties, underestimated time intensities, underestimated respondent latent speed parameters, and overestimated precision of respondent latent estimates). The application of IRT models with and without RG to data from a computer-based language test showed parameter differences resembling those in the simulations.
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.