IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v83y2018i1d10.1007_s11336-016-9525-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Two-Stage Approach to Differentiating Normal and Aberrant Behavior in Computer Based Testing

Author

Listed:
  • Chun Wang

    (University of Minnesota)

  • Gongjun Xu

    (University of Minnesota)

  • Zhuoran Shang

    (University of Minnesota)

Abstract

Statistical methods for identifying aberrances on psychological and educational tests are pivotal to detect flaws in the design of a test or irregular behavior of test takers. Two approaches have been taken in the past to address the challenge of aberrant behavior detection, which are (1) modeling aberrant behavior via mixture modeling methods, and (2) flagging aberrant behavior via residual based outlier detection methods. In this paper, we propose a two-stage method that is conceived of as a combination of both approaches. In the first stage, a mixture hierarchical model is fitted to the response and response time data to distinguish normal and aberrant behaviors using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm. In the second stage, a further distinction between rapid guessing and cheating behavior is made at a person level using a Bayesian residual index. Simulation results show that the two-stage method yields accurate item and person parameter estimates, as well as high true detection rate and low false detection rate, under different manipulated conditions mimicking NAEP parameters. A real data example is given in the end to illustrate the potential application of the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun Wang & Gongjun Xu & Zhuoran Shang, 2018. "A Two-Stage Approach to Differentiating Normal and Aberrant Behavior in Computer Based Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 223-254, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:83:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11336-016-9525-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-016-9525-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-016-9525-x
    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/s11336-016-9525-x?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 J. van der Linden, 2006. "A Lognormal Model for Response Times on Test Items," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 31(2), pages 181-204, June.
    2. Yu-Wei Chang & Rung-Ching Tsai & Nan-Jung Hsu, 2014. "A Speeded Item Response Model: Leave the Harder till Later," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 255-274, April.
    3. Jeffrey Rouder & Dongchu Sun & Paul Speckman & Jun Lu & Duo Zhou, 2003. "A hierarchical bayesian statistical framework for response time distributions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 589-606, December.
    4. Wim Linden & Edith Krimpen-Stoop, 2003. "Using response times to detect aberrant responses in computerized adaptive testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 251-265, June.
    5. Zhan Shu & Robert Henson & Richard Luecht, 2013. "Using Deterministic, Gated Item Response Theory Model to Detect Test Cheating due to Item Compromise," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 481-497, July.
    6. Wim Linden & Fanmin Guo, 2008. "Bayesian Procedures for Identifying Aberrant Response-Time Patterns in Adaptive Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 365-384, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Chun Wang & Zhewen Fan & Hua-Hua Chang & Jeffrey A. Douglas, 2013. "A Semiparametric Model for Jointly Analyzing Response Times and Accuracy in Computerized Testing," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 38(4), pages 381-417, August.
    9. Zhewen Fan & Chun Wang & Hua-Hua Chang & Jeffrey Douglas, 2012. "Utilizing Response Time Distributions for Item Selection in CAT," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(5), pages 655-670, October.
    10. Yuri Goegebeur & Paul Boeck & James Wollack & Allan Cohen, 2008. "A Speeded Item Response Model with Gradual Process Change," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 65-87, March.
    11. Robert Mislevy & Norman Verhelst, 1990. "Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 195-215, June.
    12. Daniel O. Segall, 2002. "An Item Response Model for Characterizing Test Compromise," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 27(2), pages 163-179, June.
    13. Michael V. Levine & Donald B. Rubin, 1979. "Measuring the Appropriateness of Multiple-Choice Test Scores," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 4(4), pages 269-290, December.
    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. Inhan Kang & Minjeong Jeon & Ivailo Partchev, 2023. "A Latent Space Diffusion Item Response Theory Model to Explore Conditional Dependence between Responses and Response Times," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 830-864, September.
    2. Yue Liu & Hongyun Liu, 2021. "Detecting Noneffortful Responses Based on a Residual Method Using an Iterative Purification Process," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(6), pages 717-752, December.
    3. Inhan Kang & Paul Boeck & Roger Ratcliff, 2022. "Modeling Conditional Dependence of Response Accuracy and Response Time with the Diffusion Item Response Theory Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 725-748, June.
    4. Chen, Yunxiao & Lu, Yan & Moustaki, Irini, 2022. "Detection of two-way outliers in multivariate data and application to cheating detection in educational tests," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112499, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Renske E. Kuijpers & Ingmar Visser & Dylan Molenaar, 2021. "Testing the Within-State Distribution in Mixture Models for Responses and Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(3), pages 348-373, June.
    6. Inhan Kang & Dylan Molenaar & Roger Ratcliff, 2023. "A Modeling Framework to Examine Psychological Processes Underlying Ordinal Responses and Response Times of Psychometric Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 940-974, September.
    7. Jochen Ranger & Jörg-Tobias Kuhn, 2018. "Estimating Diffusion-Based Item Response Theory Models: Exploring the Robustness of Three Old and Two New Estimators," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(6), pages 635-662, December.

    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. Edison M. Choe & Jinming Zhang & Hua-Hua Chang, 2018. "Sequential Detection of Compromised Items Using Response Times in Computerized Adaptive Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(3), pages 650-673, September.
    2. Maria Bolsinova & Jesper Tijmstra, 2019. "Modeling Differences Between Response Times of Correct and Incorrect Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1018-1046, December.
    3. Maria Bolsinova & Paul Boeck & Jesper Tijmstra, 2017. "Modelling Conditional Dependence Between Response Time and Accuracy," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(4), pages 1126-1148, December.
    4. Hyeon-Ah Kang, 2023. "Sequential Generalized Likelihood Ratio Tests for Online Item Monitoring," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 672-696, June.
    5. Chen, Yunxiao & Lu, Yan & Moustaki, Irini, 2022. "Detection of two-way outliers in multivariate data and application to cheating detection in educational tests," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112499, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Steffi Pohl & Esther Ulitzsch & Matthias Davier, 2019. "Using Response Times to Model Not-Reached Items due to Time Limits," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 892-920, September.
    7. Dylan Molenaar & Paul Boeck, 2018. "Response Mixture Modeling: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Item Characteristics across Response Times," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(2), pages 279-297, June.
    8. Hongyue Zhu & Hong Jiao & Wei Gao & Xiangbin Meng, 2023. "Bayesian Change-Point Analysis Approach to Detecting Aberrant Test-Taking Behavior Using Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 48(4), pages 490-520, August.
    9. Hua-Hua Chang, 2015. "Psychometrics Behind Computerized Adaptive Testing," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Hyeon-Ah Kang & Yi Zheng & Hua-Hua Chang, 2020. "Online Calibration of a Joint Model of Item Responses and Response Times in Computerized Adaptive Testing," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(2), pages 175-208, April.
    11. Matthias von Davier & Lale Khorramdel & Qiwei He & Hyo Jeong Shin & Haiwen Chen, 2019. "Developments in Psychometric Population Models for Technology-Based Large-Scale Assessments: An Overview of Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(6), pages 671-705, December.
    12. Yi-Hsuan Lee & Zhiliang Ying, 2015. "A Mixture Cure-Rate Model for Responses and Response Times in Time-Limit Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 748-775, September.
    13. Sandip Sinharay & Peter W. van Rijn, 2020. "Assessing Fit of the Lognormal Model for Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(5), pages 534-568, October.
    14. Yu-Wei Chang & Jyun-Ye Tu, 2022. "Bayesian estimation for an item response tree model for nonresponse modeling," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 85(8), pages 1023-1047, November.
    15. Renske E. Kuijpers & Ingmar Visser & Dylan Molenaar, 2021. "Testing the Within-State Distribution in Mixture Models for Responses and Response Times," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(3), pages 348-373, June.
    16. Wim J. van der Linden, 2009. "A Bivariate Lognormal Response-Time Model for the Detection of Collusion Between Test Takers," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 34(3), pages 378-394, September.
    17. Chen, Haiqin & De Boeck, Paul & Grady, Matthew & Yang, Chien-Lin & Waldschmidt, David, 2018. "Curvilinear dependency of response accuracy on response time in cognitive tests," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 16-23.
    18. Jochen Ranger, 2013. "A Note on the Hierarchical Model for Responses and Response Times in Tests of van der Linden (2007)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 538-544, July.
    19. Jeffrey Rouder & Jordan Province & Richard Morey & Pablo Gomez & Andrew Heathcote, 2015. "The Lognormal Race: A Cognitive-Process Model of Choice and Latency with Desirable Psychometric Properties," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 491-513, June.
    20. Peter W. Rijn & Usama S. Ali, 2018. "A Generalized Speed–Accuracy Response Model for Dichotomous Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 109-131, March.

    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:83:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11336-016-9525-x. 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.