ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Estimability before accuracy: missing-data strategies for classroom-scale student assessment.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidance on handling missing item responses in educational assessments is drawn almost entirely from large-scale testing programs; however, much of the practical work occurs in single classes and small multi-class samples. This Monte Carlo study aimed to identify which strategies can be estimated at all at that scale, and how accurate they are once estimation succeeds. A complete-data benchmark and four missing-data strategies were evaluated across sample sizes from 40 to 200. The primary design examined four missingness mechanisms at a 15% missingness rate, and an additional 25% sensitivity condition was evaluated at selected sample sizes; each condition used 100 replications. The strategies were listwise deletion, a two-parameter logistic model fitted directly to the incomplete response matrix, multiple imputation followed by calibration, and a two-factor item response tree model. Estimability, not accuracy, separated the procedures. At 40 examinees, an admissible solution was obtained in 0.42 to 0.46 of replications with complete data, 0.19 to 0.23 for direct estimation, 0.02 to 0.07 for multiple imputation, and 0.00 to 0.05 for the item response tree model. The two-factor tree model showed severe estimation instability throughout the smallest sample-size region, and the same pattern persisted when data were generated from the tree model itself, ruling out misspecification as the sole explanation. Once estimation succeeded, the procedures differed by only a few hundredths of a theta standard deviation in root mean square error, while substantial individual-level uncertainty remained. Under the investigated conditions, direct estimation was more often estimable and showed a small accuracy advantage over the implemented imputation procedure in the adequately supported paired comparisons. At classroom scale, the choice of a missing-data strategy is primarily a question of estimability, and convergence and parameter stability should be reported whenever these models are applied.
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.