arbiter
JournalsAccount

Comparing Different Approaches of (Not) Accounting for Rapid Guessing in Plausible Values Estimation

Jana Welling et al.

Educational and Psychological Measurement2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644251395590article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Educational large-scale assessments provide information on ability differences between groups, informing policies and shaping educational decisions. However, some of these differences might partly reflect variations in test-taking motivation rather than in actual abilities. Existing approaches for mitigating the distorting effects of rapid guessing focus mainly on point estimates of abilities, although research questions often refer to latent variables. The present study seeks to (a) determine the bias introduced by rapid guessing in group comparisons based on plausible value estimates and (b) introduce and evaluate different approaches of handling rapid guessing in the estimation of plausible values. In a simulation study, four models were compared: (1) a baseline model did not account for rapid guessing, (2) a person-level model incorporated rapid guessing as a respondent characteristic in the background model, (3) a response-level model filtered responses with item response times lower than a predetermined threshold, and (4) a combined model merged the person- and response-level approaches. Results show that the response-level and combined model performed best while accounting for rapid guessing on the person level did not suffice. An empirical example using data from a German large-scale assessment (N = 478) demonstrates the applicability of all approaches in practice. Recommendations for future research are given to improve ability estimation.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644251395590

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jana2026,
  title        = {{Comparing Different Approaches of (Not) Accounting for Rapid Guessing in Plausible Values Estimation}},
  author       = {Jana Welling et al.},
  journal      = {Educational and Psychological Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644251395590},
}

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

Flag this paper

Comparing Different Approaches of (Not) Accounting for Rapid Guessing in Plausible Values Estimation

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.