Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40518623›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2025

Joint Item Response Models for Manual and Automatic Scores on Open-Ended Test Items.

Daniel Bengs, Ulf Brefeld, Ulf Kroehne, Fabian Zehner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 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.

Daniel BengsLeibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6101-4241
Ulf BrefeldLeuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Ulf KroehneLeibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt, Germany.
Fabian ZehnerLeibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Test items using open-ended response formats can increase an instrument's construct validity. However, traditionally, their application in educational testing requires human coders to score the responses. Manual scoring not only increases operational costs but also prohibits the use of evidence from open-ended items to inform routing decisions in adaptive designs. Using machine learning and natural language processing, automatic scoring provides classifiers that can instantly assign scores to text responses. Although optimized for agreement with manual scores, automatic scoring is not perfectly accurate and introduces an additional source of error into the response process, leading to a misspecification of the measurement model used with the manual score. We propose two joint models for manual and automatic scores of automatically scored open-ended items. Our models extend a given model from Item Response Theory for the manual scores by a component for the automatic scores, accounting for classification errors. The models were evaluated using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (2012) and simulated data, demonstrating their capacity to mitigate the impact of classification errors on ability estimation compared to a baseline that disregards classification errors.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementModels, StatisticalPsychometricsHumansMachine LearningNatural Language Processingautomatic scoringitem response modelinglarge-scale assessment

Identifiers

PMID40518623
PMCPMC12660020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.