arbiter
JournalsAccount

Latent Poisson count models for action count data from technology‐enhanced assessments

Gregory Arbet & Hyeon‐Ah Kang

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology2026https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.70036article
ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Recent advances in computerized assessments have enabled the use of innovative item formats (e.g., drag-and-drop, scenario-based), necessitating a flexible model that can capture systematic influence of item types on action counts. In this study, we present a refinement scheme that can explicitly model common features of items and allows inference on the item-type effects. We apply multifaceted parameterization to characterize the common and unique features of items and implement the formulation in two existing models, the Rasch and Conway-Maxwell-Poisson count models. The inference procedures for the proposed models are presented using Stan and validated for estimation accuracy. Numerical experimentation with simulated data suggest that the proposed inferential scheme adequately recovers the underlying model parameters. Empirical application demonstrated that the proposed refinement holds practical relevance when data exhibit distinct item-type effects. Based on the findings from the empirical investigation, we discuss practical considerations in applying the Poisson models for analysing count data.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.70036

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{gregory2026,
  title        = {{Latent Poisson count models for action count data from technology‐enhanced assessments}},
  author       = {Gregory Arbet & Hyeon‐Ah Kang},
  journal      = {British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.70036},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Latent Poisson count models for action count data from technology‐enhanced assessments

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.