ArticlePsychometrika2025
Joint Item Response Models for Manual and Automatic Scores on Open-Ended Test Items.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.