Person-Level Analysis of the Effect of Cognitive Loading by Question Difficulty and Question Time Intensity on Didactic Examination Fluency (Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff).

Journal of applied measurement Pub Date : 2018-01-01
James J Thompson
{"title":"Person-Level Analysis of the Effect of Cognitive Loading by Question Difficulty and Question Time Intensity on Didactic Examination Fluency (Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff).","authors":"James J Thompson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fluency may be considered as a conjoint measure of work product quality and speed. It is especially useful in educational and medical settings to evaluate expertise and/or competence. In this paper, didactic exams were used to model fluency. Binned propensity matching with question difficulty and time intensity was used to define a 'load' variable and construct fluency (sum correct/ elapsed response time). Response surfaces as speed-accuracy tradeoffs resulted from the analysis. Person by load fluency matrices behaved well in Rasch analysis and warranted the definition of a person fluency variable ('skill'). A path model with skill and load as mediators substantially described the fluency data. The indirect paths through skill and load dominated direct variable effects. This is supportive evidence that skill and load have stand-alone merit. Therefore, it appears that the constructs of skill, load, and fluency could provide psychometrically defensible descriptors when utilized in appropriate contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":73608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied measurement","volume":"19 3","pages":"229-242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fluency may be considered as a conjoint measure of work product quality and speed. It is especially useful in educational and medical settings to evaluate expertise and/or competence. In this paper, didactic exams were used to model fluency. Binned propensity matching with question difficulty and time intensity was used to define a 'load' variable and construct fluency (sum correct/ elapsed response time). Response surfaces as speed-accuracy tradeoffs resulted from the analysis. Person by load fluency matrices behaved well in Rasch analysis and warranted the definition of a person fluency variable ('skill'). A path model with skill and load as mediators substantially described the fluency data. The indirect paths through skill and load dominated direct variable effects. This is supportive evidence that skill and load have stand-alone merit. Therefore, it appears that the constructs of skill, load, and fluency could provide psychometrically defensible descriptors when utilized in appropriate contexts.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
题目难度和题目时间强度的认知负荷对教学考试流畅性影响的个人水平分析(速度-准确性权衡)。
流畅性可以被认为是工作产品质量和速度的联合度量。在教育和医疗环境中,评估专业知识和/或能力特别有用。在本文中,教学测试被用来模拟流畅性。用问题难度和时间强度的分类倾向匹配来定义“负载”变量和构建流畅性(正确/经过的响应时间总和)。响应面是分析得出的速度与精度的权衡。人按负载的流畅性矩阵在Rasch分析中表现良好,并保证了人流畅性变量(“技能”)的定义。以技能和负荷为中介的路径模型实质上描述了流畅性数据。通过技能和负荷的间接路径主导了直接变量效应。这是支持性证据,表明技能和负荷有各自的价值。因此,在适当的语境下,技能、负荷和流畅性的构念似乎可以提供心理测量学上站得住脚的描述。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validation of Egalitarian Education Questionnaire using Rasch Measurement Model. Bootstrap Estimate of Bias for Intraclass Correlation. Rasch's Logistic Model Applied to Growth. Psychometric Properties of the General Movement Optimality Score using Rasch Measurement. Rasch Analysis of the Burn-Specific Pain Anxiety Scale: Evidence for the Abbreviated Version.
×
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