Per-period ability distributions implied by the linked calibrations agree closely with the pooled benchmark, checking the linking independently of the items¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Per-period ability means differed by at most 0.08 reference-metric units and ability standard deviation ratios ranged from 0.98 to 1.07. → Paul A. Jewsbury and Steven W. Nydick and Manqian Liao and Siyuan (Marco) Chen 2026
Evidence¶
Paul A. Jewsbury and Steven W. Nydick and Manqian Liao and Siyuan (Marco) Chen 2026¶
Paul A. Jewsbury and Steven W. Nydick and Manqian Liao and Siyuan (Marco) Chen. (2026). Bayesian Consensus Calibration of Continuously Evolving IRT Item Banks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13590 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.13590
q2 · i? · design · r2
Ability-distribution agreement comparison from the benchmark evaluation. Because the item link and the ability-metric transformation share the same constants, this comparison checks the linking independently of the items; the reported differences are descriptive.
"the per-period ability means implied by the linked period calibrations differed by at most 0.08 reference-metric units, and the ratio of the corresponding ability standard deviations ranged from 0.98 to 1.07."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Consensus calibration closely reproduces pooled-benchmark item-parameter means and standard deviations on an operational assessment — related
- Consensus calibration shows mild under-dispersion relative to the pooled benchmark, strongest for sparsely observed items, consistent with residual prior over-counting — related
- A convergence screen excluding non-converged (item, parameter) pairs removed 1.9% of pairs from the benchmark comparison — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ability-distribution-agreement-linking-check |
title |
Per-period ability distributions implied by the linked calibrations agree closely with the pooled benchmark, checking the linking independently of the items |
description |
Per-period ability distributions implied by the linked calibrations agree closely with the pooled benchmark, checking the linking independently of the items |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2029 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — paul-a-jewsbury-and-steven-w-nydick-and-manqian-liao-and-siyuan-marco-chen-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.