Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38898882›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2024

A Comparison of Response Time Threshold Scoring Procedures in Mitigating Bias From Rapid Guessing Behavior.

Joseph A Rios, Jiayi Deng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Joseph A RiosUniversity of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1004-9946
Jiayi DengUniversity of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-2956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

IRTnon-effortful respondingparameter recoveryrapid guessingvalidity

Identifiers

PMID38898882
PMCPMC11185099

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.