Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187689›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2023

Scoring Graphical Responses in TIMSS 2019 Using Artificial Neural Networks.

Matthias von Davier, Lillian Tyack, Lale Khorramdel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Matthias von DavierBoston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1298-9701
Lillian TyackBoston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Lale KhorramdelBoston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated scoring of free drawings or images as responses has yet to be used in large-scale assessments of student achievement. In this study, we propose artificial neural networks to classify these types of graphical responses from a TIMSS 2019 item. We are comparing classification accuracy of convolutional and feed-forward approaches. Our results show that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) outperform feed-forward neural networks in both loss and accuracy. The CNN models classified up to 97.53% of the image responses into the appropriate scoring category, which is comparable to, if not more accurate, than typical human raters. These findings were further strengthened by the observation that the most accurate CNN models correctly classified some image responses that had been incorrectly scored by the human raters. As an additional innovation, we outline a method to select human-rated responses for the training sample based on an application of the expected response function derived from item response theory. This paper argues that CNN-based automated scoring of image responses is a highly accurate procedure that could potentially replace the workload and cost of second human raters for international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), while improving the validity and comparability of scoring complex constructed-response items.

Indexed as

automated scoringconvolutional neural networkfeed-forward neural networkimage responsesinternational large-scale assessmentTIMSS

Identifiers

PMID37187689
PMCPMC10177318

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.