Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39989924›Full record

ArticleApplied psychological measurement2025

Few and Different: Detecting Examinees With Preknowledge Using Extended Isolation Forests.

Nate R Smith, Lisa A Keller, Richard A Feinberg, Chunyan Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Nate R SmithUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.
Lisa A KellerUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.
Richard A FeinbergNational Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-9867
Chunyan LiuNational Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7863-8229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Item preknowledge refers to the case where examinees have advanced knowledge of test material prior to taking the examination. When examinees have item preknowledge, the scores that result from those item responses are not true reflections of the examinee's proficiency. Further, this contamination in the data also has an impact on the item parameter estimates and therefore has an impact on scores for all examinees, regardless of whether they had prior knowledge. To ensure the validity of test scores, it is essential to identify both issues: compromised items (CIs) and examinees with preknowledge (EWPs). In some cases, the CIs are known, and the task is reduced to determining the EWPs. However, due to the potential threat to validity, it is critical for high-stakes testing programs to have a process for routinely monitoring for evidence of EWPs, often when CIs are unknown. Further, even knowing that specific items may have been compromised does not guarantee that any examinees had prior access to those items, or that those examinees that did have prior access know how to effectively use the preknowledge. Therefore, this paper attempts to use response behavior to identify item preknowledge without knowledge of which items may or may not have been compromised. While most research in this area has relied on traditional psychometric models, we investigate the utility of an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, extended isolation forest (EIF), to detect EWPs. Similar to previous research, the response behavior being analyzed is response time (RT) and response accuracy (RA).

Indexed as

isolated forestsitem compromisepreknowledgetest security

Identifiers

PMID39989924
PMCPMC11843570

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.