↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of Process Data of PISA 2012 Computer-Based Problem Solving: Application of the Modified Multilevel Mixture IRT Model

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
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.
Title
Analysis of Process Data of PISA 2012 Computer-Based Problem Solving: Application of the Modified Multilevel Mixture IRT Model
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01372
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongyun Liu, Yue Liu, Meijuan Li

Abstract

Computer-based assessments provide new insights into cognitive processes related to task completion that cannot be easily observed using paper-based instruments. In particular, such new insights may be revealed by time-tamped actions, which are recorded as computer log-files in the assessments. These actions, nested in individual level, are logically interconnected. This interdependency can be modeled straightforwardly in a multi-level framework. This study draws on process data recorded in one of complex problem-solving tasks (Traffic CP007Q02) in Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 and proposes a modified Multilevel Mixture IRT model (MMixIRT) to explore the problem-solving strategies. It was found that the model can not only explore whether the latent classes differ in their response strategies at the process level, but provide ability estimates at both the process level and the student level. The two level abilities are different across latent classes, and they are related to operational variables such as the number of resets or clicks. The proposed method may allow for better exploration of students' specific strategies for solving a problem, and the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies. Such findings may be further used to design targeted instructional interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 24%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Mathematics 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,625
of 30,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,507
of 331,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#652
of 717 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,483 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 331,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 717 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.