Threshold-setting methods are compared using reading scores from over 728,923 students on a computer-adaptive test of nearly 12,000 items¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
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? The study compares response time threshold-setting methods using reading test scores from over 728,923 3rd–8th-grade students in 2,056 schools taking a CAT of nearly 12,000 items. → James Soland 2021
Evidence¶
James Soland 2021¶
James Soland, Megan Kuhfeld, Joseph Rios. (2021). Comparing different response time threshold setting methods to detect low effort on a large-scale assessment. Large-scale Assessments in Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00100-w
q2 · i? · associational · r?
Large-scale observational comparison described in the abstract: reading test scores from "over 728,923 3rd–8th-grade students in 2,056 schools" on a CAT with nearly 12,000 items were used to compare threshold-setting methods. No results are printed in the supplied text.
"we use reading test scores from over 728,923 3rd–8th-grade students in 2,056 schools across the United States taking a CAT consisting of nearly 12,000 items to compare threshold-setting methods."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Response-time threshold-setting methods for detecting noneffortful item responses were compared using reading scores from over 728,923 US students in 2,056 schools — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Prior threshold-method comparison studies typically used simulated or small-scale data, or non-CAT large-scale data with few items — a broader claim this one bears on
- Detecting noneffortful responses requires setting response time thresholds that separate effortful from noneffortful responses — related
- Information-based rapid-guessing threshold methods set thresholds more reliably than methods based on response accuracy or visual inspection — related
- Unmotivated examinees present a major threat to the validity of scores in low-stakes testing programs — related
- CATs can have important advantages over conventional tests in identifying instances when examinees exhibit low effort — related
- Conditioning results from multiple disengagement detection methods on response times shows how the conditional approach aids threshold setting and misclassification avoidance — related
- Low examinee effort is a major threat to valid uses of many test scores — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
large-scale-cat-threshold-method-comparison |
title |
Threshold-setting methods are compared using reading scores from over 728,923 students on a computer-adaptive test of nearly 12,000 items |
description |
Threshold-setting methods are compared using reading scores from over 728,923 students on a computer-adaptive test of nearly 12,000 items |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — james-soland-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.