在门控筛选中使用区间似然比:一项直接复制研究

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2020-09-10 DOI:10.1177/1534508420953894
David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, Peter M. Nelson
{"title":"在门控筛选中使用区间似然比:一项直接复制研究","authors":"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, Peter M. Nelson","doi":"10.1177/1534508420953894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This direct replication study compared the use of dichotomized likelihood ratios and interval likelihood ratios, derived using a prior sample of students, for predicting math risk in middle school. Data from the prior year state test and the Measures of Academic Progress were analyzed to evaluate differences in the efficiency and diagnostic accuracy of gated screening decisions. Post-test probabilities were interpreted using a threshold decision-making model to classify student risk during screening. Using interval likelihood ratios led to fewer students requiring additional testing after the first gate. But, when interval likelihood ratios were used, three tests were required to classify 6th- and 7th-grade students as at-risk or not at-risk. Only two tests were needed to classify students as at-risk or not at-risk when dichotomized likelihood ratios were used. Acceptable sensitivity and specificity estimates were obtained, regardless of the type of likelihood ratios used to estimate post-test probabilities. When predicting academic risk, interval likelihood ratios may be best reserved for situations where at least three successive tests are available to be used in a gated screening model.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1534508420953894","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Interval Likelihood Ratios in Gated Screening: A Direct Replication Study\",\"authors\":\"David A. Klingbeil, Ethan R. Van Norman, Peter M. Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1534508420953894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This direct replication study compared the use of dichotomized likelihood ratios and interval likelihood ratios, derived using a prior sample of students, for predicting math risk in middle school. Data from the prior year state test and the Measures of Academic Progress were analyzed to evaluate differences in the efficiency and diagnostic accuracy of gated screening decisions. Post-test probabilities were interpreted using a threshold decision-making model to classify student risk during screening. Using interval likelihood ratios led to fewer students requiring additional testing after the first gate. But, when interval likelihood ratios were used, three tests were required to classify 6th- and 7th-grade students as at-risk or not at-risk. Only two tests were needed to classify students as at-risk or not at-risk when dichotomized likelihood ratios were used. Acceptable sensitivity and specificity estimates were obtained, regardless of the type of likelihood ratios used to estimate post-test probabilities. When predicting academic risk, interval likelihood ratios may be best reserved for situations where at least three successive tests are available to be used in a gated screening model.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1534508420953894\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508420953894\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508420953894","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这项直接复制研究比较了使用二分法似然比和区间似然比预测中学数学风险的方法,这两种方法是使用先前的学生样本得出的。分析了前一年状态测试和学业进步测量的数据,以评估门控筛查决策的效率和诊断准确性的差异。在筛选过程中,使用阈值决策模型对测试后的概率进行了解释,以对学生的风险进行分类。使用区间似然比可以减少第一次入学后需要额外测试的学生。但是,当使用区间似然比时,需要进行三项测试来将六年级和七年级的学生分为有风险或无风险。当使用二分似然比时,只需要两项测试就可以将学生归类为有风险或无风险。无论用于估计测试后概率的似然比类型如何,都获得了可接受的敏感性和特异性估计。在预测学术风险时,区间似然比可能最好保留在至少有三个连续测试可用于门控筛查模型的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Using Interval Likelihood Ratios in Gated Screening: A Direct Replication Study
This direct replication study compared the use of dichotomized likelihood ratios and interval likelihood ratios, derived using a prior sample of students, for predicting math risk in middle school. Data from the prior year state test and the Measures of Academic Progress were analyzed to evaluate differences in the efficiency and diagnostic accuracy of gated screening decisions. Post-test probabilities were interpreted using a threshold decision-making model to classify student risk during screening. Using interval likelihood ratios led to fewer students requiring additional testing after the first gate. But, when interval likelihood ratios were used, three tests were required to classify 6th- and 7th-grade students as at-risk or not at-risk. Only two tests were needed to classify students as at-risk or not at-risk when dichotomized likelihood ratios were used. Acceptable sensitivity and specificity estimates were obtained, regardless of the type of likelihood ratios used to estimate post-test probabilities. When predicting academic risk, interval likelihood ratios may be best reserved for situations where at least three successive tests are available to be used in a gated screening model.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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