Treating Noneffortful Responses as Missing.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1177/00131644241297925
Christine E DeMars
{"title":"Treating Noneffortful Responses as Missing.","authors":"Christine E DeMars","doi":"10.1177/00131644241297925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigates the treatment of rapid-guess (RG) responses as missing data within the context of the effort-moderated model. Through a series of illustrations, this study demonstrates that the effort-moderated model assumes missing at random (MAR) rather than missing completely at random (MCAR), explaining the conditions necessary for MAR. These examples show that RG responses, when treated as missing under the effort-moderated model, do not introduce bias into ability estimates if the missingness mechanism is properly accounted for. Conversely, using a standard item response theory (IRT) model (scoring RG responses as if they were valid) instead of the effort-moderated model leads to considerable biases, underestimating group means and overestimating standard deviations when the item parameters are known, or overestimating item difficulty if the item parameters are estimated.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644241297925"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241297925","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

This study investigates the treatment of rapid-guess (RG) responses as missing data within the context of the effort-moderated model. Through a series of illustrations, this study demonstrates that the effort-moderated model assumes missing at random (MAR) rather than missing completely at random (MCAR), explaining the conditions necessary for MAR. These examples show that RG responses, when treated as missing under the effort-moderated model, do not introduce bias into ability estimates if the missingness mechanism is properly accounted for. Conversely, using a standard item response theory (IRT) model (scoring RG responses as if they were valid) instead of the effort-moderated model leads to considerable biases, underestimating group means and overestimating standard deviations when the item parameters are known, or overestimating item difficulty if the item parameters are estimated.

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
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
Exploring the Evidence to Interpret Differential Item Functioning via Response Process Data. Treating Noneffortful Responses as Missing. Discriminant Validity of Interval Response Formats: Investigating the Dimensional Structure of Interval Widths. Novick Meets Bayes: Improving the Assessment of Individual Students in Educational Practice and Research by Capitalizing on Assessors' Prior Beliefs. Differential Item Functioning Effect Size Use for Validity Information.
×
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