Setting the response time threshold parameter to differentiate solution behavior from rapid-guessing behavior

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 606-619

  Kong, Xiaojing J ^a   Wise, Steven L ^a   Bhola, Dennison S ^a  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Effort; Low stakes testing; Rapid guessing behavior; Response time

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547196925     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406294779     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education, 2000. Chicago: Author.
2. Haladyna, T.M., Downing, S.M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23 (1). 17-27.
3. McLachlan, G., Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.
4. Schnipke, D.L., Scrams, D.J. (1997). Modeling item response times with a two-state mixture model: A new method of measuring speededness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 213-232.
5. Schnipke, D.L., Scrams, D.J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, W. C. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 237-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Sundre, D.L. (1999, April). Does examinee motivation moderate the relationship between test consequences and test performance ? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432588)
7. Sundre, D.L., Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance ? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26.
8. Sundre, D.L., Moore, D.L. (2002). The Student Opinion Scale: A measure of examinee motivation. Assessment Update, 14 (1). 8-9.
9. Sundre, D.L., Wise, S.L. (2003, April). 'Motivation filtering': An exploration of the impact of low examinee motivation on the psychometric quality of tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
10. van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychometric Bulletin Review, 7, 434-465.
11. Wand, M.P., Jones, M.C. (1995). Kernel smoothing. London: Chapman and Hall.
12. Wise, S.L. (2006). An investigation of the differential effort received by items on a low-stakes, computer-based test. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 25-114.
13. Wise, S.L., Bhola, D.S., Yang, S. (2006). Taking the time to improve the validity of low-stakes tests: The effort-monitoring CBT. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 21-30.
14. Wise, S.L., De Mars, C.E. (2005). Examinee motivation in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1-17.
15. Wise, S.L., De Mars, C.E. (2006). An application of item response time: The effort-moderated IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 19-38.
16. Wise, S.L., Kingsbury, G.G., Thomason, J., Kong, X. (2004, April). An investigation of motivation filtering in a statewide achievement testing program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
17. Wise, S.L., Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 163-183.
18. Wise, V.L., Bhola, D.S., Wise, S.L. (2006). The generalizability of motivation filtering in improving test score validity. Educational Assessment, 11, 65-83.
19. Wolf, L.F., Smith, J.K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242.