ArticleScientific reports2024
Individual random effects model for differences in trait distribution among respondents.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experimental study on the synchronization mechanism and trigger characteristic density of vertical evacuation in crowds.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The homogeneity hypothesis is a common assumption in classic measurement. However, the item response theory model assumes that different respondents with same ability have the same option probabilities, which may not hold. The aim of this study is to propose a new individual random effect model that accounts for the differences in option probabilities among respondents with same latent traits by using within-person variance. The performance of the new model is evaluated through simulation studies and real data using the PRESUPP scale of PISA. The model parameters are estimated by the MCMC method. The results show that the individual random effect model can provide more accurate parameter estimates and obtain a scale parameter to describe the distribution of respondents' abilities, under different within-person variances. The new model has lower RMSE and better model fit than the classic IRT model.
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.