Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions

dc.contributor.authorHolopainen, Santeri
dc.contributor.authorMetsämuuronen, Jari
dc.contributor.authorLaakso, Mikko-Jussi
dc.contributor.authorKujala, Janne
dc.contributor.organizationfi=oppimisanalytiikan tutkimusinstituutti|en=Turku Research Institute for Learning Analytics|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tilastotiede|en=Statistics|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.73636593326
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.42133013740
dc.converis.publication-id515789236
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/515789236
dc.date.accessioned2026-04-24T16:23:22Z
dc.description.abstractResponse Time Threshold Methods (RTTMs) are widely used to identify rapid-guessing behavior (RG) in low-stakes assessments, yet face two key challenges: (a) inevitable misclassifications due to overlapping response time distributions of engaged and disengaged responses, and (b) lack of agreement on which method to use under varying conditions. This simulation study evaluated five RTTMs. Item responses and response times were generated from either a one-component model without RG or a two-component mixture model with RG in the population. Distribution, item, and person parameters were varied. Results showed that when the population contained RG, the mixture lognormal distribution-based method (MLN) was the most robust approach and estimated precise thresholds closest to the time points at which the misclassification rates were minimized, even when bimodality was more difficult to detect. The cumulative proportion method (CUMP) was less robust but also accurate when successful, though less precise. In addition, when the population did not include RG, CUMP was the only method to set thresholds for a notable proportion of cases. The methods were generally more conservative than liberal, though the mixture response time quantile method (MRTQ) was neither. The results are discussed in the light of prior RG research and the methods' characteristics, and future directions are suggested. Ultimately, for practical settings, we recommend a six-step process for RG identification that utilizes both a mixture modeling approach (MLN or MRTQ) and the CUMP method.
dc.identifier.eissn1552-3888
dc.identifier.jour-issn0013-1644
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/58682
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261419426
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2026042332818
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorHolopainen, Santeri
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorMetsämuuronen, Jari
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorLaakso, Mikko-Jussi
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorKujala, Janne
dc.okm.discipline112 Statistics and probabilityen_GB
dc.okm.discipline112 Tilastotiedefi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherSAGE Publications
dc.publisher.countryUnited Statesen_GB
dc.publisher.countryYhdysvallat (USA)fi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeUS
dc.relation.articlenumber131644261419426
dc.relation.doi10.1177/00131644261419426
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEducational and Psychological Measurement
dc.titleMisclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions
dc.year.issued2026

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
holopainen-et-al-2026-misclassification-produced-by-rapid-guessing-identification-methods-and-their-suitability-under.pdf
Size:
365.96 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format