Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37623535›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2023

Exploring the Influence of Item Characteristics in a Spatial Reasoning Task.

Qingzhou Shi, Stefanie A Wind, Joni M Lakin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Qingzhou ShiDepartment of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, College of Education, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0230-4617
Stefanie A WindDepartment of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, College of Education, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1599-375X
Joni M LakinDepartment of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, College of Education, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0546-0554

Funding

U.S. Department of Education R305A210428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Well-designed spatial assessments can incorporate multiple sources of complexity that reflect important aspects of spatial reasoning. When these aspects are systematically included in spatial reasoning items, researchers can use psychometric models to examine the impact of each aspect on item difficulty. These methods can then help the researchers to understand the nature and development of spatial reasoning and can also inform the development of new items to better reflect the construct. This study investigated sources of item difficulty for object assembly (OA), a format for the assessment of spatial reasoning, by specifying nine item characteristics that were predicted to contribute to item difficulty. We used data from two focal samples including high-ability students in grades 3 to 7 and undergraduate students who responded to 15 newly developed OA items. Results from the linear logistic test model (LLTM) indicated that eight of the nine identified item characteristics significantly contributed to item difficulty. This suggests that an LLTM approach is useful in examining the contributions of various aspects of spatial reasoning to item difficulty and informing item development for spatial reasoning assessments.

Indexed as

explanatory response modelsitem response theorylinear logistic test modelsspatial reasoningvisuospatial ability

Identifiers

PMID37623535
PMCPMC10456020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.