Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37326911›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2023

Exploring the Effects of Item-Specific Factors in Sequential and IRTree Models.

Weicong Lyu, Daniel M Bolt, Samuel Westby

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Fused SDT/IRT Models for Mixed-Format Exams.Educational and psychological measurement · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Weicong LyuUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, 880 Educational Sciences, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. wlyu4@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8159-2161
Daniel M BoltUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, 1082 A Educational Sciencesz, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Samuel WestbyNortheastern University, 177 Huntington Ave Desk 232O, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Test items for which the item score reflects a sequential or IRTree modeling outcome are considered. For such items, we argue that item-specific factors, although not empirically measurable, will often be present across stages of the same item. In this paper, we present a conceptual model that incorporates such factors. We use the model to demonstrate how the varying conditional distributions of item-specific factors across stages become absorbed into the stage-specific item discrimination and difficulty parameters, creating ambiguity in the interpretations of item and person parameters beyond the first stage. We discuss implications in relation to various applications considered in the literature, including methodological studies of (1) repeated attempt items; (2) answer change/review, (3) on-demand item hints; (4) item skipping behavior; and (5) Likert scale items. Our own empirical applications, as well as several examples published in the literature, show patterns of violations of item parameter invariance across stages that are highly suggestive of item-specific factors. For applications using sequential or IRTree models as analytical models, or for which the resulting item score might be viewed as outcomes of such a process, we recommend (1) regular inspection of data or analytic results for empirical evidence (or theoretical expectations) of item-specific factors; and (2) sensitivity analyses to evaluate the implications of item-specific factors for the intended inferences or applications.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalHumansPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesIRTree modelssequential IRT modelsspecific factors

Identifiers

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.