ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Full-information item bifactor model for mathematical ability assessment in Chinese compulsory education quality monitoring.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study focuses on the measurement of mathematical ability in the Chinese Compulsory Education Qualification Monitoring (CCEQM) framework using bifactor theory. First, we propose a full-information item bifactor (FIBF) model for the measurement of mathematical ability. Second, the performance of the FIBF model is empirically studied using a data set from three representative provinces were selected from CCEQM 2015-2017. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to demonstrate the accuracy of the model evaluation indices and parameter estimation methods used in the empirical study. The obtained results are as follows: (1) The results for the four used model selection indices (AIC, SABIC, HQ, BIC) consistently showed that the fit of the FIBF model is better than that of the UIRT; (2) All of the estimated general and domain-specific abilities of the FIBF model have reasonable interpretations; (3) The model evaluation indices and parameter estimation methods exhibit excellent accuracy, indicating that the application of the FIBF model is technically feasible in large-scale testing projects.
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.