Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions

Santeri Holopainen et al.

Educational and Psychological Measurement2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261419426article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Response Time Threshold Methods (RTTMs) are widely used to identify rapid-guessing behavior (RG) in low-stakes assessments, yet face two key challenges: (a) inevitable misclassifications due to overlapping response time distributions of engaged and disengaged responses, and (b) lack of agreement on which method to use under varying conditions. This simulation study evaluated five RTTMs. Item responses and response times were generated from either a one-component model without RG or a two-component mixture model with RG in the population. Distribution, item, and person parameters were varied. Results showed that when the population contained RG, the mixture lognormal distribution-based method (MLN) was the most robust approach and estimated precise thresholds closest to the time points at which the misclassification rates were minimized, even when bimodality was more difficult to detect. The cumulative proportion method (CUMP) was less robust but also accurate when successful, though less precise. In addition, when the population did not include RG, CUMP was the only method to set thresholds for a notable proportion of cases. The methods were generally more conservative than liberal, though the mixture response time quantile method (MRTQ) was neither. The results are discussed in the light of prior RG research and the methods' characteristics, and future directions are suggested. Ultimately, for practical settings, we recommend a six-step process for RG identification that utilizes both a mixture modeling approach (MLN or MRTQ) and the CUMP method.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261419426

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{santeri2026,
  title        = {{Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions}},
  author       = {Santeri Holopainen et al.},
  journal      = {Educational and Psychological Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644261419426},
}

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

Flag this paper

Misclassification Produced by Rapid-Guessing Identification Methods and Their Suitability Under Various Conditions

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.