ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2024
A Comparison of Response Time Threshold Scoring Procedures in Mitigating Bias From Rapid Guessing Behavior.
Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2024. 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.
- Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
- Comparing Different Approaches of (Not) Accounting for Rapid Guessing in Plausible Values Estimation.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid guessing (RG) is a form of non-effortful responding that is characterized by short response latencies. This construct-irrelevant behavior has been shown in previous research to bias inferences concerning measurement properties and scores. To mitigate these deleterious effects, a number of response time threshold scoring procedures have been proposed, which recode RG responses (e.g., treat them as incorrect or missing, or impute probable values) and then estimate parameters for the recoded dataset using a unidimensional or multidimensional IRT model. To date, there have been limited attempts to compare these methods under the possibility that RG may be misclassified in practice. To address this shortcoming, the present simulation study compared item and ability parameter recovery for four scoring procedures by manipulating sample size, the linear relationship between RG propensity and ability, the percentage of RG responses, and the type and rate of RG misclassifications. Results demonstrated two general trends. First, across all conditions, treating RG responses as incorrect produced the largest degree of combined systematic and random error (larger than ignoring RG). Second, the remaining scoring approaches generally provided equal accuracy in parameter recovery when RG was perfectly identified; however, the multidimensional IRT approach was susceptible to increased error as misclassification rates grew. Overall, the findings suggest that recoding RG as missing and employing a unidimensional IRT model is a promising approach.
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.