Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41070353›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2026

Guessing During Testing is a Person Attribute Not an Instrument Parameter.

Georgios D Sideridis, Mohammed Alghamdi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Georgios D SideridisHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4393-5995
Mohammed AlghamdiKing Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The three-parameter logistic (3PL) model in item-response theory (IRT) has long been used to account for guessing in multiple-choice assessments through a fixed item-level parameter. However, this approach treats guessing as a property of the test item rather than the individual, potentially misrepresenting the cognitive processes underlying the examinee's behavior. This study evaluates a novel alternative, the Two-Parameter Logistic Extension (2PLE) model, which re-conceptualizes guessing as a function of a person's ability rather than as an item-specific constant. Using Monte Carlo simulation and empirical data from the PIRLS 2021 reading comprehension assessment, we compared the 3PL and 2PLE models on the recovery of latent ability, predictive fit (Leave-One-Out Information Criterion [LOOIC]), and theoretical alignment with test-taking behavior. The simulation results demonstrated that although both models performed similarly in terms of root-mean-squared error (RMSE) for ability estimates, the 2PLE model consistently achieved superior LOOIC values across conditions, particularly with longer tests and larger sample sizes. In an empirical analysis involving the reading achievement of 131 fourth-grade students from Saudi Arabia, model comparison again favored 2PLE, with a statistically significant LOOIC difference (ΔLOOIC = 0.482,

Indexed as

2PL2PLE extension model3PL modelsitem-response theoryperson-guessing estimation

Identifiers

PMID41070353
PMCPMC12504208

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.