Search

Wollack et al. (2015) suggested the erasure detection index (EDI) for detecting fraudulent erasures for individual examinees. Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) extended the index of Wollack et al. (2015) to suggest three EDIs for detecting fraudulent erasures at the aggregate or group level. This article follows up on the research of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018) and suggests a new aggregate-level EDI by incorporating the empirical best linear unbiased predictor from the literature of linear mixed-effects models (e.g., McCulloch et al., 2008). A simulation study shows that the new EDI has larger power than the indices of Wollack and Eckerly (2017) and Sinharay (2018). In addition, the new index has satisfactory Type I error rates. A real data example is also included., Competing Interests: Authors’ Note: The author Luyao Peng is currently an employee at ByteDance. The study was conducted by the authors in 2020 while Luyao Peng was a visiting researcher at Beijing Language and Culture University. The final article was accepted in January 2021. Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Although there are many studies devoted to person-fit statistics to detect inconsistent item score patterns, most studies are difficult to understand for nonspecialists. The aim of this tutorial is to explain the principles of these statistics for researchers and clinicians who are interested in applying these statistics. In particular, we first explain how invalid test scores can be detected using person-fit statistics; second, we provide the reader practical examples of existing studies that used person-fit statistics to detect and to interpret inconsistent item score patterns; and third, we discuss a new R-package that can be used to identify and interpret inconsistent score patterns., (© The Author(s) 2015.)