ArticlePloS one2025
Absence of item origin bias on a Brazilian interinstitutional Progress Test examination: A pooled analysis of items approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt has been proposed that the school origin of items for cross-institutional Progress Tests (PTs) may introduce a bias in favour of students from the same school, posing a potential threat to the validity and reliability of PT results and cross-institutional comparisons. The aim of this study was to examine whether origin bias is present in a Brazilian cross-institutional PT examination.
methodsThis study conducted a cross-sectional analysis of seven schools affiliated with the oldest PT consortium in Brazil, utilising a pooled analysis of differences in students' performance concerning self and non-self items. A proportional meta-analysis of the items' rate differences and confidence intervals with random effects was performed, providing an odds ratio (OR) for self and non-self items. Differences between the two groups of items were assessed by scrutinising whether the OR and 95% confidence intervals overlapped.
resultsThe findings indicated no discernible differences in psychometric indices based on the school responsible for item creation. Three schools consistently demonstrate superior performance on items authored by their faculty, however, these they also excelled on non-self items. Furthermore, an overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for both self and non-self items was observed across all seven schools.
conclusionsIn contrast to prior reports, this study revealed the absence of origin bias, suggesting that adoption of best practices in blueprinting, item writing, and editing may have played a role in mitigating such bias.
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.