Advertisement

Behaviormetrika

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 223–224 | Cite as

Introduction to the Vol.45, No.2, 2018

  • Maomi Ueno
EDITORIAL
  • 97 Downloads

Welcome to the Vol. 45, No. 2, 2018 of Behaviormetrika.

The first paper is “Use of weights in mixed randomized response model” by Singh and Gorey (2018). This study proposed a weighted unbiased estimator based on mixed randomized response model. The results show that the proposed estimator is superior to the previous estimators under some conditions.

The second paper is “Multilevel structural equation modeling-based quasi-experimental synthetic cohort design” by Wang et al. (2018). This paper examined the effectiveness post hoc adjustment approaches such as propensity score matching in reducing the selection bias of synthetic cohort design (SCD) for causal inference. The efficiency of SCD is ensured by the historical equivalence of groups (HEoG) assumption. According to the mathematical proof, HEoG ensures that the use of SCD results in an unbiased estimator of the schooling effect.

The third paper is “Does the delivery matter? Examining randomization at the item level” by Buchanan et al. (2018). This paper examined the differences in scale relationships for randomized and nonrandomized computer delivery for two scales measuring meaning/purpose in life. These scales have questions about suicidality, depression, and life goals that may cause item reactivity (i.e., a changed response to a second item based on the answer to the first item). Results indicated that item randomization does not alter scale psychometrics for meaning in life scales, which implies that results are comparable even if researchers implement different delivery modalities.

The fourth paper is “Propensity score methods for causal inference: an overview” by Pan and Bai (2018). This study provides a review of recent studies on propensity score methods for causal inference. This review provides beneficial information about propensity score methods from the historical point of view and helps researchers to select appropriate propensity score methods for their observational studies.

In this issue, two special features were included:”Advanced Methodologies for Bayesian Networks” (Scutari 2018; Capdevila et al. 2018; Peña 2018, Sugaya et al. 2018) which was edited by Joe Suzuki, Antti Hytthinen, and Brandon Malone, and “Advanced Technologies in Educational Assessment” (Deonovic et al. 2018, Slater and Baker 2018, Frey 2018, Kroehne and Goldhammer 2018, Specifically, de Klerk et al. 2018, Nguyen et al.2018, Shi et al. 2018, Rights et al. 2018) which was edited by Ronny Scherer and Marie Wiberg. Both issues specifically addressed state-of-the-art methods of statistics, machine learning, artificial intelligence and data science.

References

  1. Buchanan EM, Foreman RE, Johnson BN, Pavlacic JM, Swadley RL, Schulenberg SE (2018) Does the delivery matter? Examining randomization at the item level. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0055-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capdevila J, Zhao H, Petitjean F, Buntine W (2018) Experiments with learning graphical models on text. Behaviormetrika. 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0050-3
  3. Deonovic B, Yudelson M, Bolsinova M, Attali M, Maris G (2018) Learning meets assessment. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0070-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frey A (2018) Response time-based treatment of omitted responses in computer-based testing. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0073-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Klerk S, Veldkamp BP, Eggen TJHM (2018) The design, development, and validation of a multimedia-based performance assessment for credentialing confined space guards. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0064-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kroehne U, Goldhammer F (2018) How to conceptualize, represent, and analyze log data from technology-based assessments? A generic framework and an application to questionnaire items. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0063-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nguyen Q, Thorne S, Rienties B (2018) How do students engage with computer-based assessments: impact of study breaks on intertemporal engagement and pass rates. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0060-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pan W, Bai H (2018) Propensity score methods for causal inference: an overview. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0058-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peña J (2018) Reasoning with alternative acyclic directed mixed graphs. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0051-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rights J, Sterba SK, Cho S-J, Preacher KJ (2018) Addressing model uncertainty in item response theory person scores through model averaging. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0052-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Scutari M (2018) Dirichlet Bayesian network scores and the maximum relative entropy principle. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0048-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shi G, Lippert AM, Shubeck K, Fang Y, Chen S, Pavlik P Jr, Greenberg D, Graesser AC (2018) Exploring an intelligent tutoring system as a conversation-based assessment tool for reading comprehension. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0065-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Singh HP, Gorey SM (2018) Use of weights in mixed randomized response model. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0049-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Slater, S., Baker, R. S. (2018) Degree of error in bayesian knowledge tracing estimates from differences in sample sizes. Behaviormetrika 45(2). 10.1007/s41237-018-0072-xGoogle Scholar
  15. Sugaya T, Nishino M, Yasuda N, Minato S (2018) Fast compilation of graph substructures for counting and enumeration. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0056-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang Q, Houang RT, Maier K (2018) Multilevel structural equation modeling-based quasi-experimental synthetic cohort design. Behaviormetrika 45(2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0053-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Electro-CommunicationsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations