Effort-moderated scoring exhibits improved person fit statistics compared with traditional scoring¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: 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? Effort-moderated scoring showed improved person fit statistics. → Modeling student test-taking motivation in the context of an adaptive achievement test 2016
Evidence¶
Modeling student test-taking motivation in the context of an adaptive achievement test 2016¶
Modeling student test-taking motivation in the context of an adaptive achievement test. (2016). Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(1), 86–105. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/modeling-student-test-taking-motivation-in-the-context-of-an-adaptive-achievement-test/
q2 · i? · associational · r?
In the same scoring comparison on adaptive achievement test data, effort-moderated scoring was found to "exhibit improved person fit statistics." No person-fit values are printed in the available text.
"Effort‐moderated scoring was found to both yield scores that were more accurate than those found under traditional scoring, and exhibit improved person fit statistics."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Effort-moderated scoring yields more accurate achievement scores and better person fit than traditional MLE scoring when rapid guessing is present — related
- In simulation, effort-moderated scoring (EM-CAT and EG-CAT) yields negligible bias and nominal 95% confidence interval coverage, unlike MLE-CAT scoring — related
- Effort-moderated scoring yields more accurate scores than traditional scoring on an adaptive achievement test — related
- One measurement article argues that low test-taking motivation biases an individual student's achievement test score downward — related
- CATs can have important advantages over conventional tests in identifying instances when examinees exhibit low effort — related
- Rapid-guessing behavior on an adaptive achievement test is inconsistent with most proposed models of unmotivated test taking except the effort-moderated model — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
effort-moderated-scoring-improved-person-fit |
title |
Effort-moderated scoring exhibits improved person fit statistics compared with traditional scoring |
description |
Effort-moderated scoring exhibits improved person fit statistics compared with traditional scoring |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
recheck_by |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — modeling-student-test-taking-motivation-in-the-context-of-an-adaptive-achievement-test-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.