Skip to main content

Table 6 Performance comparison of all models on the training and testing set. The \(R^{2}\) score and root mean squared error (RMSE) indicate how well we can fit the true reading progress. Accuracy measures if the direction of progress is correctly predicted and the f1 score is a combination of precision and recall. Since both, accuracy and f1 score are the same, we know that precision (positive predictive value) and recall (sensitivity) have the same value. For all, except RSME, holds that higher values indicate a better fit. Test and train values are close to one another, which suggests that no strong over-fitting occurred. We finally chose linear regression and ridge regression as final models

From: Both sides of the story: comparing student-level data on reading performance from administrative registers to application generated data from a reading app

Split

Metric name

Accuracy

\(R^{2}\)

RMSE

f1

Test

linear regression

0.621

0.159

16.400

0.621

ridge regression

0.621

0.180

16.197

0.621

extremely randomized trees

0.568

0.114

16.743

0.568

LightGBM

0.636

0.141

16.492

0.636

random forest

0.575

0.086

17.005

0.575

SVR (RBF kernel)

0.594

0.136

16.534

0.594

SVR (linear kernel)

0.620

0.157

16.338

0.620

Train

linear regression

0.648

0.158

16.568

0.648

ridge regression

0.642

0.167

16.481

0.642

extremely randomized trees

0.680

0.293

14.968

0.680

LightGBM

0.660

0.197

15.951

0.660

random forest

0.698

0.403

13.751

0.698

SVR (Gaussian kernel)

0.657

0.193

15.990

0.657

SVR (linear kernel)

0.663

0.172

16.198

0.663