Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions.

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Santeri Holopainen, Jari Metsämuuronen, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Janne Kujala
{"title":"Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions.","authors":"Santeri Holopainen, Jari Metsämuuronen, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Janne Kujala","doi":"10.1177/00131644261419426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Response Time Threshold Methods (RTTMs) are widely used to identify rapid-guessing behavior (RG) in low-stakes assessments, yet face two key challenges: (a) inevitable misclassifications due to overlapping response time distributions of engaged and disengaged responses, and (b) lack of agreement on which method to use under varying conditions. This simulation study evaluated five RTTMs. Item responses and response times were generated from either a one-component model without RG or a two-component mixture model with RG in the population. Distribution, item, and person parameters were varied. Results showed that when the population contained RG, the mixture lognormal distribution-based method (MLN) was the most robust approach and estimated precise thresholds closest to the time points at which the misclassification rates were minimized, even when bimodality was more difficult to detect. The cumulative proportion method (CUMP) was less robust but also accurate when successful, though less precise. In addition, when the population did not include RG, CUMP was the only method to set thresholds for a notable proportion of cases. The methods were generally more conservative than liberal, though the mixture response time quantile method (MRTQ) was neither. The results are discussed in the light of prior RG research and the methods' characteristics, and future directions are suggested. Ultimately, for practical settings, we recommend a six-step process for RG identification that utilizes both a mixture modeling approach (MLN or MRTQ) and the CUMP method.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644261419426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12929091/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261419426","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

Response Time Threshold Methods (RTTMs) are widely used to identify rapid-guessing behavior (RG) in low-stakes assessments, yet face two key challenges: (a) inevitable misclassifications due to overlapping response time distributions of engaged and disengaged responses, and (b) lack of agreement on which method to use under varying conditions. This simulation study evaluated five RTTMs. Item responses and response times were generated from either a one-component model without RG or a two-component mixture model with RG in the population. Distribution, item, and person parameters were varied. Results showed that when the population contained RG, the mixture lognormal distribution-based method (MLN) was the most robust approach and estimated precise thresholds closest to the time points at which the misclassification rates were minimized, even when bimodality was more difficult to detect. The cumulative proportion method (CUMP) was less robust but also accurate when successful, though less precise. In addition, when the population did not include RG, CUMP was the only method to set thresholds for a notable proportion of cases. The methods were generally more conservative than liberal, though the mixture response time quantile method (MRTQ) was neither. The results are discussed in the light of prior RG research and the methods' characteristics, and future directions are suggested. Ultimately, for practical settings, we recommend a six-step process for RG identification that utilizes both a mixture modeling approach (MLN or MRTQ) and the CUMP method.

快速猜测识别方法产生的误分类及其在不同条件下的适用性。
反应时间阈值方法(RTTMs)被广泛用于识别低风险评估中的快速猜测行为(RG),但面临两个关键挑战:(a)由于参与和不参与反应的反应时间分布重叠而不可避免的错误分类;(b)在不同条件下使用哪种方法缺乏共识。该模拟研究评估了5种rttm。项目反应和反应时间由不含RG的单组分模型或含RG的双组分混合模型生成。分布、项目和人员参数各不相同。结果表明,当总体包含RG时,基于混合对数正态分布的方法(MLN)是最稳健的方法,即使在双峰更难检测的情况下,它也能准确估计出最接近误分类率最小的时间点的阈值。累积比例法(CUMP)的稳健性较差,但在成功时也很准确,尽管精度较低。此外,当人群不包括RG时,CUMP是为显著比例的病例设置阈值的唯一方法。虽然混合反应时间分位数法(MRTQ)两者均不保守,但该方法总体上偏保守。结合前人的研究成果和方法特点,对研究结果进行了讨论,并提出了今后的研究方向。最后,对于实际设置,我们推荐使用混合建模方法(MLN或MRTQ)和CUMP方法进行RG识别的六步过程。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书