Researcher profile

Brian D. Marx

Brian D. Marx contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Interpretation and inference for altmetric indicators arising from sparse data statistics

In 2018 Bornmann and Haunschild (2018a) introduced a new indicator called the Mantel-Haenszel quotient (MHq) to measure alternative metrics (or altmetrics) of scientometric data. In this article we review the Mantel-Haenszel statistics, point out two errors in the literature, and introduce a new indicator. First, we correct the interpretation of MHq and mention that it is still a meaningful indicator. Second, we correct the variance formula for MHq, which leads to narrower confidence intervals. A simulation study shows the superior performance of our variance estimator and confidence intervals. Since MHq does not match its original description in the literature, we propose a new indicator, the Mantel-Haenszel row risk ratio (MHRR), to meet that need. Interpretation and statistical inference for MHRR are discussed. For both MHRR and MHq, a value greater (less) than one means performance is better (worse) than in the reference set called the world.

preprint2020arXiv

Computer-based and paper-and-pencil tests: A study in calculus for STEM majors

Computer-based testing is an expanding use of technology offering advantages to teachers and students. We studied Calculus II classes for STEM majors using different testing modes. Three sections with 324 students employed: Paper-and-pencil testing, computer-based testing, and both. Computer tests gave immediate feedback, allowed multiple submissions, and pooling. Paper-and-pencil tests required work and explanation allowing inspection of high cognitive demand tasks. Each test mode used the strength of its method. Students were given the same lecture by the same instructor on the same day and the same homework assignments and due dates. The design is quasi-experimental, but students were not aware of the testing mode at registration. Two basic questions examined were: (1) Do paper-and-pencil and computer-based tests measure knowledge and skill in STEM Calculus II in a consistent manner? (2) How does the knowledge and skill gained by students in a fully computer-based Calculus II class compare to students in a class requiring pencil-and-paper tests and hence some paper-and-pencil work. These results indicate that computer-based tests are as consistent with paper-and-pencil tests as computer-based tests are with themselves. Results are also consistent with classes using paper-and-pencil tests having slightly better outcomes than fully computer-based classes using only computer assessments.