Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Department of Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran. , asghar.minaei@yahoo.com
Abstract: (11 Views)
Background: International standardized tests such as TIMSS serve as rich sources for examining student academic performance. However, accurate interpretation of the results from these assessments necessitates an understanding of students’ response patterns and styles. Despite the importance of analyzing response patterns in international tests like TIMSS for gaining a deeper understanding of student performance, few studies have comprehensively examined and compared the response styles of eighth-grade students in the TIMSS science assessment using Item Response Theory (IRT) models across multiple time cycles (2011, 2015, 2019).
Aims: The purpose of this study was to identify the response styles of Iranian students in the TIMSS Grade 8 Science assessments conducted in 2011, 2015, and 2019.
Methods: This research is applied in terms of its purpose and correlational in terms of its methodology. Additionally, it falls within the category of secondary analysis studies. The statistical population of this study included all participants in the TIMSS Grade 8 Science assessments during the years 2011, 2015, and 2019. According to official statistics, the total number of participants was 18,124. The instrument used in this study was the TIMSS Science test for the years 2011, 2015, and 2019. To determine the response styles and their stability, IRTree modeling based on a hierarchical approach was employed using the R/Rstudio software packages. The statistical significance level for this study was set at 0.05 (α = 0.05).
Results: In the TIMSS 2011 assessment, more than half of Iranian students exhibited a typical response style. In the TIMSS 2015 assessment, approximately one-third of Iranian students showed an extreme response style, while another one-third demonstrated a typical response style. In the TIMSS 2019 assessment, around one-third of Iranian students exhibited both typical and extreme response styles.
Conclusion: Given the observed differences in students' response styles, it is necessary to identify their weaknesses and implement changes in the educational, technological, or cultural systems affecting students.
Aims: The purpose of this study was to identify the response styles of Iranian students in the TIMSS Grade 8 Science assessments conducted in 2011, 2015, and 2019.
Methods: This research is applied in terms of its purpose and correlational in terms of its methodology. Additionally, it falls within the category of secondary analysis studies. The statistical population of this study included all participants in the TIMSS Grade 8 Science assessments during the years 2011, 2015, and 2019. According to official statistics, the total number of participants was 18,124. The instrument used in this study was the TIMSS Science test for the years 2011, 2015, and 2019. To determine the response styles and their stability, IRTree modeling based on a hierarchical approach was employed using the R/Rstudio software packages. The statistical significance level for this study was set at 0.05 (α = 0.05).
Results: In the TIMSS 2011 assessment, more than half of Iranian students exhibited a typical response style. In the TIMSS 2015 assessment, approximately one-third of Iranian students showed an extreme response style, while another one-third demonstrated a typical response style. In the TIMSS 2019 assessment, around one-third of Iranian students exhibited both typical and extreme response styles.
Conclusion: Given the observed differences in students' response styles, it is necessary to identify their weaknesses and implement changes in the educational, technological, or cultural systems affecting students.
Article number: 16
Type of Study: Applicable |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/01/12 | Accepted: 2026/04/17 | Published: 2026/07/23
Received: 2026/01/12 | Accepted: 2026/04/17 | Published: 2026/07/23
References
1. ایلانلو حسین (1398). بررسی تفکر انتقادی و آموزش آن در آموزش وپرورش. رویش روان شناسی، ۸ (۵): ۱۰۶- ۱۰۱. URL: http://frooyesh.ir/article-۱-۹۴۷-fa.html
2. Aleksankov, A. M. (2017). The Fourth industrial revolution and modernization of education: international experience. Strategic priorities, 1(13), 53-69. DOI: 10.24411/2413-0324-2017-10013
3. Böckenholt, U., & Meiser, T. (2017). Response style analysis with threshold and multi‐process IRT models: A review and tutorial. British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 70(1), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12086
4. Chen, X. (2022). The effects of individual-and class-level achievement on attitudes towards mathematics: An analysis of Hong Kong students using TIMSS 2019. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101113. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101113
5. Dibek, M. I., & Cikrikci, R. N. (2021). Modelling of the Attitude-Achievement Paradox in TIMSS 2015 with respect to the Extreme Response Style Using Multidimensional Item Response Theory. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 194-209. DOI: 10.18271/ijpe.87752
6. Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1-7. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3419383
7. Dumas, D., McNeish, D., & Greene, J. A. (2020). Dynamic measurement: A theoretical–psychometric paradigm for modern educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 55(2), 88-105. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1744150
8. Ehrlich, H. J. (1964). Instrument error and the study of prejudice. Social Forces, 43(2), 197-206. DOI: 10.2307/2574618
9. Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis: A primer. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 34(2), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250427
10. Henninger, M., & Meiser, T. (2020). Different approaches to modeling response styles in divide-by-total item response theory models (part 1): A model integration. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 560. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/4m7vu
11. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
12. Hutton, A. C. (2017). Assessing acquiescence in surveys using positively and negatively worded questions. Virginia Commonwealth University. DOI: 10.25772/9499
13. Ilanloo H. (2019). Examining critical thinking and teaching it in education. Rooyesh. 8(5), 101-106. http://frooyesh.ir/article-1-947-fa.html (In Persian).
14. Ismail, M. E., Samsudin, M. A., Amin, N. F. M., Kamarudin, N., Daud, K. A. M., & Halim, L. (2018). Contributing factors to science achievement in TIMSS Malaysia: Direct model and indirect model. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.30), 423-428. DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.30.17713
15. Isozaki, T. (2018). Science teacher education in Japan: past, present, and future. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(1), 1-14.DOI: 10.1186/s41029-018-0027-2
16. Jeon, M., & De Boeck, P. (2016). A generalized item response tree model for psychological assessments. Behavior research methods, 48, 1070-1085. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0647-7
17. Kaufman, E. A., Beeney, J. E., & Stepp, S. D. (2023). Self-report response style bias and borderline personality features. Current Psychology, 42(24), 20443-20451. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-023-04431-z
18. Khorramdel, L., von Davier, M., & Pokropek, A. (2019). Combining mixture distribution and multidimensional IRTree models for the measurement of extreme response styles. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 72(3), 538-559. DOI: 10.1111/bmsp.12178
19. Kim, N., & Bolt, D. M. (2021). A mixture IRTree model for extreme response style: Accounting for response process uncertainty. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(1), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420913915
20. Liu, M., Harbaugh, A. G., Harring, J. R., & Hancock, G. R. (2017). The effect of extreme response and non-extreme response styles on testing measurement invariance. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 726. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00726
21. Lu, Y., & Bolt, D. M. (2015). Examining the attitude-achievement paradox in PISA using a multilevel multidimensional IRT model for extreme response style. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 3, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-015-0012-0
22. Majeed, F. A., & Abuharaz, M. (2019, March). Multi DoF system modelling-Transfer Function and State variable approaches. In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.DOI: 10.1109/ICASET.2019.8714448
23. Martin, M. O., von Davier, M., & Mullis, I. V. (2020). Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. DOI: 10.37606/tmtr.54
24. Papanastasiou, E. C., & Michaelides, M. P. (2024). Examining successful and unsuccessful time management through process data: two novel indicators of test-taking behaviors. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 12(1), 3. DOI: 10.1186/s40536-024-00193-z
25. Saatcioglu, F. M., & Sen, S. (2023). The analysis of TIMSS 2015 data with confirmatory mixture item response theory: A multidimensional approach. International Journal of Testing, 23(4), 257-275. DOI: 10.17275/per.20.41.7.3
26. Sirota, M., & Juanchich, M. (2018). Effect of response format on cognitive reflection: Validating a two-and four-option multiple choice question version of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Behavior research methods, 50, 2511-2522. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1029-4
27. Tsupros, N. Kohler, R. & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. Intermediate Unit, 1, 11-17. DOI: 10.4135/9781452226464.n6
28. Tutz, G., Schauberger, G., & Berger, M. (2018). Response styles in the partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42(6), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617748322
29. Wang, Y., & Lewis, S. E. (2022). Towards a theoretically sound measure of chemistry students’ motivation; investigating rank-sort survey methodology to reduce response style bias. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(1), 240-256. DOI: 10.1039/D1RP00206F
30. Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2020). Validity of three IRT models for measuring and controlling extreme and midpoint response styles. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 271. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00271
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License. |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)