Applied Psychological Measurement

Suboptimal effort is a major threat to valid score-based inferences. While the effects of such behavior have been frequently examined in the context of mean group comparisons, minimal research has considered its effects on individual score use (e.g., identifying students for remediation). Focusing on the latter context, this study addressed two related questions via simulation and applied analyses. First, we investigated how much including noneffortful responses in scoring using a three-parameter logistic (3PL) model affects person parameter recovery and classification accuracy for noneffortful responders. Second, we explored whether improvements in these individual-level inferences were observed when employing the Effort Moderated IRT (EM-IRT) model under conditions in which its assumptions were met and violated. Results demonstrated that including 10% noneffortful responses in scoring led to average bias in ability estimates and misclassification rates by as much as 0.15 SDs and 7%, respectively. These results were mitigated when employing the EM-IRT model, particularly when model assumptions were met. However, once model assumptions were violated, the EM-IRT model’s performance deteriorated, though still outperforming the 3PL model. Thus, findings from this study show that (a) including noneffortful responses when using individual scores can lead to potential unfounded inferences and potential score misuse, and (b) the negative impact that noneffortful responding has on person ability estimates and classification accuracy can be mitigated by employing the EM-IRT model, particularly when its assumptions are met.

In high-stakes testing, often multiple test forms are used and a common time limit is enforced. Test fairness requires that ability estimates must not depend on the administration of a specific test form. Such a requirement may be violated if speededness differs between test forms. The impact of not taking speed sensitivity into account on the comparability of test forms regarding speededness and ability estimation was investigated. The lognormal measurement model for response times by van der Linden was compared with its extension by Klein Entink, van der Linden, and Fox, which includes a speed sensitivity parameter. An empirical data example was used to show that the extended model can fit the data better than the model without speed sensitivity parameters. A simulation was conducted, which showed that test forms with different average speed sensitivity yielded substantial different ability estimates for slow test takers, especially for test takers with high ability. Therefore, the use of the extended lognormal model for response times is recommended for the calibration of item pools in high-stakes testing situations. Limitations to the proposed approach and further research questions are discussed.

A model for multiple-choice exams is developed from a signal-detection perspective. A correct alternative in a multiple-choice exam can be viewed as being a signal embedded in noise (incorrect alternatives). Examinees are assumed to have perceptions of the plausibility of each alternative, and the decision process is to choose the most plausible alternative. It is also assumed that each examinee either knows or does not know each item. These assumptions together lead to a signal detection choice model for multiple-choice exams. The model can be viewed, statistically, as a mixture extension, with random mixing, of the traditional choice model, or similarly, as a grade-of-membership extension. A version of the model with extreme value distributions is developed, in which case the model simplifies to a mixture multinomial logit model with random mixing. The approach is shown to offer measures of item discrimination and difficulty, along with information about the relative plausibility of each of the alternatives. The model, parameters, and measures derived from the parameters are compared to those obtained with several commonly used item response theory models. An application of the model to an educational data set is presented.

Practitioners in the sciences have used the “flow” of knowledge (post-test score minus pre-test score) to measure learning in the classroom for the past 50 years. Walstad and Wagner, and Smith and Wagner moved this practice forward by disaggregating the flow of knowledge and accounting for student guessing. These estimates are sensitive to misspecification of the probability of guessing correct. This work provides guidance to practitioners and researchers facing this problem. We introduce a transformed measure of true positive learning that under some knowable conditions performs better when students’ ability to guess correctly is misspecified and converges to Hake’s normalized learning gain estimator under certain conditions. We then use simulations to compare the accuracy of two estimation techniques under various violations of the assumptions of those techniques. Using recursive partitioning trees fitted to our simulation results, we provide the practitioner concrete guidance based on a set of yes/no questions.