项目反应理论等价中处理快速猜测反应策略的性能评估。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Juyoung Jung, Won-Chan Lee
{"title":"项目反应理论等价中处理快速猜测反应策略的性能评估。","authors":"Juyoung Jung, Won-Chan Lee","doi":"10.1177/00131644251329524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assesses the performance of strategies for handling rapid guessing responses (RGs) within the context of item response theory observed-score equating. Four distinct approaches were evaluated: (1) ignoring RGs, (2) penalizing RGs as incorrect responses, (3) implementing list-wise deletion (LWD), and (4) treating RGs as missing data followed by imputation using logistic regression-based methodologies. These strategies were examined across a diverse array of testing scenarios. Results indicate that the performance of each strategy varied depending on the specific manipulated factors. Both ignoring and penalizing RGs were found to introduce substantial distortions in equating accuracy. LWD generally exhibited the lowest bias among the strategies evaluated but showed higher standard errors. Data imputation methods, particularly those employing lasso logistic regression and bootstrap techniques, demonstrated superior performance in minimizing equating errors compared to other approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":" ","pages":"00131644251329524"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955993/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Performance of Strategies for Handling Rapid Guessing Responses in Item Response Theory Equating.\",\"authors\":\"Juyoung Jung, Won-Chan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00131644251329524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study assesses the performance of strategies for handling rapid guessing responses (RGs) within the context of item response theory observed-score equating. Four distinct approaches were evaluated: (1) ignoring RGs, (2) penalizing RGs as incorrect responses, (3) implementing list-wise deletion (LWD), and (4) treating RGs as missing data followed by imputation using logistic regression-based methodologies. These strategies were examined across a diverse array of testing scenarios. Results indicate that the performance of each strategy varied depending on the specific manipulated factors. Both ignoring and penalizing RGs were found to introduce substantial distortions in equating accuracy. LWD generally exhibited the lowest bias among the strategies evaluated but showed higher standard errors. Data imputation methods, particularly those employing lasso logistic regression and bootstrap techniques, demonstrated superior performance in minimizing equating errors compared to other approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"00131644251329524\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955993/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational and Psychological Measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644251329524\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644251329524","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

摘要

本研究评估了项目反应理论背景下处理快速猜测反应(RGs)策略的表现。评估了四种不同的方法:(1)忽略RGs,(2)将RGs作为不正确的响应进行惩罚,(3)实施列表明智删除(LWD),以及(4)将RGs作为缺失数据处理,然后使用基于逻辑回归的方法进行代入。这些策略在一系列不同的测试场景中进行了检验。结果表明,每种策略的性能取决于特定的操纵因素。我们发现忽视和惩罚rg都会导致相当的准确性扭曲。在评估的策略中,LWD通常表现出最低的偏倚,但显示出较高的标准误差。与其他方法相比,数据输入方法,特别是那些采用套索逻辑回归和自举技术的方法,在最小化等式误差方面表现出优越的性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Performance of Strategies for Handling Rapid Guessing Responses in Item Response Theory Equating.

This study assesses the performance of strategies for handling rapid guessing responses (RGs) within the context of item response theory observed-score equating. Four distinct approaches were evaluated: (1) ignoring RGs, (2) penalizing RGs as incorrect responses, (3) implementing list-wise deletion (LWD), and (4) treating RGs as missing data followed by imputation using logistic regression-based methodologies. These strategies were examined across a diverse array of testing scenarios. Results indicate that the performance of each strategy varied depending on the specific manipulated factors. Both ignoring and penalizing RGs were found to introduce substantial distortions in equating accuracy. LWD generally exhibited the lowest bias among the strategies evaluated but showed higher standard errors. Data imputation methods, particularly those employing lasso logistic regression and bootstrap techniques, demonstrated superior performance in minimizing equating errors compared to other approaches.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信