Assessing the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Psychological Testing Using Experimental Manipulations.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1177/00131644241271309
Tobias Alfers, Georg Gittler, Esther Ulitzsch, Steffi Pohl
{"title":"Assessing the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Psychological Testing Using Experimental Manipulations.","authors":"Tobias Alfers, Georg Gittler, Esther Ulitzsch, Steffi Pohl","doi":"10.1177/00131644241271309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT), where increased response speed often leads to decreased accuracy, is well established in experimental psychology. However, its implications for psychological assessments, especially in high-stakes settings, remain less understood. This study presents an experimental approach to investigate the SAT within a high-stakes spatial ability assessment. By manipulating instructions in a within-subjects design to induce speed variations in a large sample (<i>N</i> = 1,305) of applicants for an air traffic controller training program, we demonstrate the feasibility of manipulating working speed. Our findings confirm the presence of the SAT for most participants, suggesting that traditional ability scores may not fully reflect performance in high-stakes assessments. Importantly, we observed individual differences in the SAT, challenging the assumption of uniform SAT functions across test takers. These results highlight the complexity of interpreting high-stakes assessment outcomes and the influence of test conditions on performance dynamics. This study offers a valuable addition to the methodological toolkit for assessing the intraindividual relationship between speed and accuracy in psychological testing (including SAT research), providing a controlled approach while acknowledging the need to address potential confounders. Future research may apply this method across various cognitive domains, populations, and testing contexts to deepen our understanding of the SAT's broader implications for psychological measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644241271309"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562887/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241271309","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT), where increased response speed often leads to decreased accuracy, is well established in experimental psychology. However, its implications for psychological assessments, especially in high-stakes settings, remain less understood. This study presents an experimental approach to investigate the SAT within a high-stakes spatial ability assessment. By manipulating instructions in a within-subjects design to induce speed variations in a large sample (N = 1,305) of applicants for an air traffic controller training program, we demonstrate the feasibility of manipulating working speed. Our findings confirm the presence of the SAT for most participants, suggesting that traditional ability scores may not fully reflect performance in high-stakes assessments. Importantly, we observed individual differences in the SAT, challenging the assumption of uniform SAT functions across test takers. These results highlight the complexity of interpreting high-stakes assessment outcomes and the influence of test conditions on performance dynamics. This study offers a valuable addition to the methodological toolkit for assessing the intraindividual relationship between speed and accuracy in psychological testing (including SAT research), providing a controlled approach while acknowledging the need to address potential confounders. Future research may apply this method across various cognitive domains, populations, and testing contexts to deepen our understanding of the SAT's broader implications for psychological measurement.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用实验操作评估心理测试中速度与准确性的权衡。
速度-准确性权衡(SAT),即反应速度的提高往往会导致准确性的降低,这在实验心理学中已得到公认。然而,它对心理测评的影响,尤其是在高风险环境中的影响,仍然鲜为人知。本研究介绍了一种在高风险空间能力评估中研究 SAT 的实验方法。通过在主体内设计中操纵指令,诱导大量(N = 1305)空中交通管制员培训项目申请者的速度变化,我们证明了操纵工作速度的可行性。我们的研究结果证实了大多数参与者的 SAT 存在,这表明传统的能力分数可能无法完全反映高风险评估中的表现。重要的是,我们观察到了 SAT 的个体差异,这挑战了不同应试者 SAT 功能一致的假设。这些结果凸显了解释高风险评估结果的复杂性,以及考试条件对成绩动态的影响。这项研究为评估心理测试(包括 SAT 研究)中速度和准确性之间的个体内部关系提供了一个宝贵的方法工具包,提供了一种受控方法,同时承认有必要解决潜在的混杂因素。未来的研究可能会在不同的认知领域、人群和测试环境中应用这种方法,以加深我们对 SAT 对心理测量的广泛影响的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
期刊最新文献
Optimal Number of Replications for Obtaining Stable Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs. Invariance: What Does Measurement Invariance Allow Us to Claim? Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Response Time. Assessing the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Psychological Testing Using Experimental Manipulations. On Latent Structure Examination of Behavioral Measuring Instruments in Complex Empirical Settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1