You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Comparison of Three Empirical Reliability Estimates for Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) Using a Medical Licensing Examination
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00681 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dong Gi Seo, Sunho Jung |
| Abstract |
Arithmetic mean, Harmonic mean, and Jensen equality were applied to marginalize observed standard errors (OSEs) to estimate CAT reliability. Based on different marginalization method, three empirical CAT reliabilities were compared with true reliabilities. Results showed that three empirical CAT reliabilities were underestimated compared to true reliability in short test length (<40), whereas the magnitude of CAT reliabilities was followed by Jensen equality, Harmonic mean, and Arithmetic mean when mean of ability population distribution is zero. Specifically, Jensen equality overestimated true reliability when the number of items is over 40 and mean ability population distribution is zero. However, Jensen equality was recommended for computing reliability estimates because it was closer to true reliability even if small numbers of items was administered regardless of the mean of ability population distribution, and it can be computed easily by using a single test information value at θ = 0. Although CAT is efficient and accurate compared to a fixed-form test, a small fixed number of items is not recommended as a CAT termination criterion for 2PLM, specifically for 3PLM, to maintain high reliability estimates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 27% |
| Researcher | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 18% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 9% |
| Engineering | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,804
of 30,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,951
of 329,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#561
of 709 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 709 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.