Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36597007›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

A state response measurement model for problem-solving process data.

Yue Xiao, Hongyun Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Yue XiaoDepartment of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
Hongyun LiuFaculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. hyliu@bnu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In computer simulation-based interactive tasks, different people make different response processes to the same tasks, resulting in various action sequences. These sequences contain rich information, not only about respondents, but also about tasks. In this study, we propose a state response (SR) measurement model with a Bayesian approach for analyzing the process sequences, which assumes that each action made is determined by the individual's problem-solving ability and the easiness of the current problem state. This model is closer to reality compared with the action sub-model (referred to as DC model) of Chen's (2020) continuous-time dynamic choice (CTDC) measurement model that defines the easiness parameter only at the task level and ignores the task's process characteristics. The simulation study showed that the SR model performed well in parameter estimation. Moreover, the estimation accuracy of the SR model was quite similar to that of the DC model when state easiness parameters were equal within the task, but was much higher when within-task state easiness parameters were unequal. For the empirical data from the Program for International Student Assessment 2012, the SR model showed better model fit than the DC model. The estimates for state easiness parameters within each task were obviously different and made sense for characterizing task steps, further demonstrating the rationality of the proposed SR model.

Indexed as

Problem SolvingBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansMeasurement modelingProblem-solvingProcess dataState response model

Identifiers

PMID36597007

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.