References
- Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2009). The effects of high stakes high school achievement awards: Evidence from a randomized trial. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1384–1414. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.4.1384
- Barry, C. L., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., Brown, A. R., & Kopp, J. P. (2010). Do examinees have similar test-taking effort? A high-stakes question for low-stakes testing. International Journal of Testing, 10(4), 342–363. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.508569
- Bulut, O., & Cormier, D. C. (2018). Validity evidence for progress monitoring with star reading: Slope estimates, administration frequency, and number of data points. Frontiers in Education, 3(68), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00068
- Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 19–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.001
- DeMars, C. E. (2007). Changes in rapid-guessing behavior over a series of assessments. Educational Assessment, 12(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190709336946
- Eklöf, H. (2006). Development and validation of scores from an instrument measuring student test-taking motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 643–656. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278574
- Eklöf, H. (2010). Skill and will: Test-taking motivation and assessment quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 345–356. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516569
- Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., & Zhang, X. (2018). Using computerized formative testing to support personalized learning in higher education: An application of two assessment technologies. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Digital technologies and instructional design for personalized learning (pp. 99–119). IGI Global. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3940-7.ch005
- Gorgun, G., & Bulut, O. (2021). A polytomous scoring approach to handle not-reached items in low-stakes assessments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(5), 847–871. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164421991211
- Guo, H., Rios, J. A., Haberman, S., Liu, O. L., Wang, J., & Paek, I. (2016). A new procedure for detection of students’ rapid guessing responses using response time. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1171766
- Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00149.x
- January, S. A. A., Van Norman, E. R., Christ, T. J., Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., & White, M. J. (2018). Progress monitoring in reading: Comparison of weekly, bimonthly, and monthly assessments for students at risk for reading difficulties in Grades 2–4. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0009.V47-1
- Jensen, N., Rice, A., & Soland, J. (2018). The influence of rapidly guessed item responses on teacher value-added estimates: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(2), 267–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718759600
- Nelson, P. M., Van Norman, E. R., Klingbeil, D. A., & Parker, D. C. (2017). Progress monitoring with computer adaptive assessments: The impact of data collection schedule on growth estimates. Psychology in the Schools, 54(5), 463–471. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22015
- Pohl, S., Ulitzsch, E., & von Davier, M. (2019). Using response times to model not-reached items due to time limits. Psychometrika, 84(3), 892–920. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-019-09669-2
- R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
- Rios, J. A., Guo, H., Mao, L., & Liu, O. L. (2017). Evaluating the impact of careless responding on aggregated-scores: To filter unmotivated examinees or not? International Journal of Testing, 17(1), 74–104. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2016.1231193
- Rizopoulos, D. (2018). ltm: Latent trait models under IRT (R-package Version 1.1-1) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ltm/ltm.pdf
- Shaw, A., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. L. (2020). Reasoning, fast and slow: How noncognitive factors may alter the ability-speed relationship. Intelligence, 83, Article 101490. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101490
- Simzar, R. M., Martinez, M., Rutherford, T., Domina, T., & Conley, A. M. (2015). Raising the stakes: How students’ motivation for mathematics associates with high-and low-stakes test achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, 49–63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.002
- Soland, J. (2018a). The achievement gap or the engagement gap? Investigating the sensitivity of gaps estimates to test motivation. Applied Measurement in Education, 31(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2018.1495213
- Soland, J. (2018b). Are achievement gap estimates biased by differential student test effort? Putting an important policy metric to the test. Teachers College Record, 120(12), 1–26.
- Soland, J., & Kuhfeld, M. (2019). Do students rapidly guess repeatedly over time? A longitudinal analysis of student test disengagement, background, and attitudes. Educational Assessment, 24(4), 327–342. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1645592
- Swerdzewski, P. J., Harmes, J. C., & Finney, S. J. (2011). Two approaches for identifying low-motivated students in a low-stakes assessment context. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 162–188. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.555217
- Tijmstra, J., & Bolsinova, M. (2018). On the importance of the speed-ability trade-off when dealing with not reached items. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 964. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00964
- Tolar, T. D., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2014). Predicting reading outcomes with progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 46–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.001
- Ulitzsch, E., Penk, C., von Davier, M., & Pohl, S. (2021). Model meets reality: Validating a new behavioral measure for test-taking effort. Educational Assessment, 26(2), 104–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1858786
- Ulitzsch, E., von Davier, M., & Pohl, S. (2020a). A hierarchical latent response model for inferences about examinee engagement in terms of guessing and item-level non-response. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 73(S1), 83–112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12188
- Ulitzsch, E., von Davier, M., & Pohl, S. (2020b). A multiprocess item response model for not-reached items due to time limits and quitting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 522–547. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419878241
- Van Norman, E. R., Nelson, P. M., & Parker, D. C. (2017). Technical adequacy of growth estimates from a computer adaptive test: Implications for progress monitoring. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 379–391. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000175
- Van Norman, E. R., & Parker, D. C. (2016). An evaluation of the linearity of curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (CBM-R) progress monitoring data: Idiographic considerations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(4), 199–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12108
- 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(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1902_2
- Wise, S. L. (2015). Effort analysis: Individual score validation of achievement test data. Applied Measurement in Education, 28(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2015.1042155
- Wise, S. L. (2017). Rapid-guessing behavior: Its identification, interpretation, and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(4), 52–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12165
- Wise, S. L. (2019). Controlling construct-irrelevant factors through computer-based testing: Disengagement, anxiety, & cheating. Education Inquiry, 10(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1490127
- Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2006). An application of item response time: The effort-moderated IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2006.00002.x
- Wise, S. L., & Kingsbury, G. G. (2016). Modeling student test-taking motivation in the context of an adaptive achievement test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 53(1), 86–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12102
- Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1802_2
- Wise, S. L., & Ma, L. (2012, April 12–16). Setting response time thresholds for a CAT item pool: The normative threshold method [Paper presentation]. National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
- Wise, S. L., Pastor, D. A., & Kong, X. J. (2009). Correlates of rapid-guessing behavior in low-stakes testing: Implications for test development and measurement practice. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340902754650
- Yildirim-Erbasli, S. N., Gorgun, G., & Bulut, O. (2021, June 8–11). Detecting careless responses: A new method utilizing response time and accuracy [Paper presentation]. National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, United States.