4.3 Article

An Illustration of an IRTree Model for Disengagement

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00131644231185533

关键词

IRTree; disengagement; rapid guessing; effort-moderated

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the use of an IRTree model to adjust examinee ability for rapid guessing behavior, without the need to remove examinees or assume independence between guessing behavior and ability. The results show that the model allows for more precise measurement of examinee ability and can estimate individual differences in disengagement with rapid guessing.
Low-stakes test performance commonly reflects examinee ability and effort. Examinees exhibiting low effort may be identified through rapid guessing behavior throughout an assessment. There has been a plethora of methods proposed to adjust scores once rapid guesses have been identified, but these have been plagued by strong assumptions or the removal of examinees. In this study, we illustrate how an IRTree model can be used to adjust examinee ability for rapid guessing behavior. Our approach is flexible as it does not assume independence between rapid guessing behavior and the trait of interest (e.g., ability) nor does it necessitate the removal of examinees who engage in rapid guessing. In addition, our method uniquely allows for the simultaneous modeling of a disengagement latent trait in addition to the trait of interest. The results indicate the model is quite useful for estimating individual differences among examinees in the disengagement latent trait and in providing more precise measurement of examinee ability relative to models ignoring rapid guesses or accommodating it in different ways. A simulation study reveals that our model results in less biased estimates of the trait of interest for individuals with rapid responses, regardless of sample size and rapid response rate in the sample. We conclude with a discussion of extensions of the model and directions for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据