IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v82y2017i3d10.1007_s11336-015-9484-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hierarchical Model for Accuracy and Choice on Standardized Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Andrew Culpepper

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • James Joseph Balamuta

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

This paper assesses the psychometric value of allowing test-takers choice in standardized testing. New theoretical results examine the conditions where allowing choice improves score precision. A hierarchical framework is presented for jointly modeling the accuracy of cognitive responses and item choices. The statistical methodology is disseminated in the ‘cIRT’ R package. An ‘answer two, choose one’ (A2C1) test administration design is introduced to avoid challenges associated with nonignorable missing data. Experimental results suggest that the A2C1 design and payout structure encouraged subjects to choose items consistent with their cognitive trait levels. Substantively, the experimental data suggest that item choices yielded comparable information and discrimination ability as cognitive items. Given there are no clear guidelines for writing more or less discriminating items, one practical implication is that choice can serve as a mechanism to improve score precision.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Andrew Culpepper & James Joseph Balamuta, 2017. "A Hierarchical Model for Accuracy and Choice on Standardized Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 820-845, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:82:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-015-9484-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-015-9484-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-015-9484-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-015-9484-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wim van der Linden, 2007. "A Hierarchical Framework for Modeling Speed and Accuracy on Test Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 287-308, September.
    2. Tsai, Rung-Ching & Bockenholt, Ulf, 2002. "Two-level linear paired comparison models: estimation and identifiability issues," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 429-449, July.
    3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    4. Richard J. Patz & Brian W. Junker, 1999. "Applications and Extensions of MCMC in IRT: Multiple Item Types, Missing Data, and Rated Responses," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 24(4), pages 342-366, December.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    6. A. Béguin & C. Glas, 2001. "MCMC estimation and some model-fit analysis of multidimensional IRT models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 541-561, December.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    9. Rung-Ching Tsai, 2000. "Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither?," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 233-240, June.
    10. Rung-Ching Tsai, 2003. "Remarks on the identifiability of thurstonian paired comparison models under multiple judgment," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 361-372, September.
    11. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    12. Eric T. Bradlow & Neal Thomas, 1998. "Item Response Theory Models Applied to Data Allowing Examinee Choice," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 23(3), pages 236-243, September.
    13. James H. Albert, 1992. "Bayesian Estimation of Normal Ogive Item Response Curves Using Gibbs Sampling," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 17(3), pages 251-269, September.
    14. Javier Revuelta, 2004. "Estimating Ability and Item-Selection Strategy in Self-Adapted Testing: A Latent Class Approach," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 29(4), pages 379-396, December.
    15. Ross,Sheldon M., 2011. "An Elementary Introduction to Mathematical Finance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521192538, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    2. Pietro Guarnieri & Tommaso Luzzati, 2018. "Riflessioni intorno al tema della razionalità in economia," Discussion Papers 2018/237, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Clement A. Tisdell, 2017. "Bounded Rationality, Satisficing and the Evolution of Economic Thought," Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers 264873, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Sanguineti, Francesca & Majocchi, Antonio & Cavusgil, S. Tamer, 2022. "Founding entrepreneur’s dilemma: Stay or exit the firm following an acquisition? An international comparison," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1).
    5. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    6. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    7. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    8. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    9. L. Mundaca & H. Moncreiff, 2021. "New Perspectives on Green Energy Defaults," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 357-383, September.
    10. Domenico Colucci & Chiara Franco & Vincenzo Valori, 2021. "Endowment effects at different time scenarios: the role of ownership and possession," Discussion Papers 2021/279, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    13. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    14. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    15. Feng, Lei & Zhang, Minghui & Li, Yixin & Jiang, Yan, 2020. "Satisfaction principle or efficiency principle? Decision-making behavior of peasant households in China’s rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    17. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    18. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    19. Eitan Hourie & Miki Malul & Raphael Bar-El, 2018. "The Value of Job Security: Does Having It Matter?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 1131-1145, October.
    20. Raphaël Giraud, 2012. "Money matters: an axiomatic theory of the endowment effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(2), pages 303-339, June.
    21. D'Orlando, Fabio & Ferrante, Francesco, 2015. "The benefits of stabilization policies revisited," MPRA Paper 67321, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:82:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11336-015-9484-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.