ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2023
Scoring Graphical Responses in TIMSS 2019 Using Artificial Neural Networks.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An intelligent agent for sentence completion test: creation and application in depression assessment.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Potential Future Directions in Optimization of Students' Performance Prediction System.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.