Across classroom, national, and international assessments, score interpretations typically assume that examinees invest sufficient effort. Yet a substantial body of evidence shows that test‑taking effort varies systematically with stakes, task characteristics, student beliefs, and context, with non‑trivial effects on scores and measurement properties. Based  on a synthesis of our own research as well as the research of others, the present paper argues that assessment outcomes are a joint function of skill and will and that validity arguments and score uses should explicitly model, measure, and communicate examinee effort. Theoretically, expectancy–value theory provides an overarching account of why students choose to invest effort (expectancies and values, including attainment, intrinsic, utility, and cost), while item-level models such as the demands–capacity framework and the rapid-guessing account explain how engagement fluctuates across items within a session. Empirical research demonstrates that effort varies by stakes, item type and position, task demands, and student characteristics (e.g., beliefs, ability), and that both self-reported and behavioral indicators predict performance; meta-analytic evidence shows moderate to strong associations, while relationships between different measures of effort on the other hand tend to be low. Computer-based assessments enable high-resolution behavioral indicators (e.g., response-time effort and action counts) that identify disengagement (rapid guessing, perfunctory CR responses), though threshold selection and misclassification remain concerns. Insufficient effort poses construct-irrelevant variance that can inflate item difficulty and discrimination, attenuate reliability, and produce misleading correlations with external variables; effects are especially salient for low-stakes tests, longer sessions, and constructed-response items. International assessment evidence suggests that while aggregate rankings may be relatively robust to filtering disengaged responses, individual scores are affected and program decisions can be distorted when effort is ignored. We conclude that effort should be assessed whenever feasible (via brief self-report and process data), explicitly considered in validity arguments and score-use decisions, and, where warranted, incorporated into modeling (e.g., effort-moderated IRT) or reporting (effort annotations in formative contexts). Future research should strengthen theory linking motivation, emotions (e.g., boredom), and process data, refine probabilistic engagement indices that allow partial effort, and evaluate equity implications across groups and cultures.

This paper employs a theory-informed review methodology synthesizing conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, and empirical findings on test-taking effort across classroom, national, and international assessments. First, we map the construct by positioning test-taking effort as the outcome of a motivational state tied to an assessment task and define it as the persistent investment of cognitive resources with the goal of accurately representing what one knows and can do. We adopt expectancy–value theory as a macro-level framework for antecedents of effort (expectancy for success; attainment, intrinsic, utility value; perceived costs) and integrate item-level process accounts—the demands–capacity model and rapid-guessing theory—to explain within-test dynamics of engagement. Second, we review measurement strategies: (a) self-report instruments (e.g., Student Opinion Scale; expectancy–value questionnaires; effort thermometers) used primarily in paper-based or hybrid settings, discussing their advantages (ease, global coverage) and limitations (bias, accuracy); and (b) behavioral indicators enabled by computer-based testing, notably item response times, counts of actions/keystrokes, and missingness, which support indices such as Response-Time Effort (RTE) and partial-engagement measures. We summarize thresholding approaches for distinguishing solution behavior from rapid guessing, highlight misclassification risks, and cover extensions to constructed-response items (e.g., short perfunctory responses, idle responding). Third, we examine contextual, item, and person correlates of effort (stakes, length, difficulty, item position; subject domain; gender, ability, socio-economic and cultural factors) and consequences for psychometrics (item parameter bias, DIF, reliability) and score interpretations (formative feedback, pilot studies, national evaluations, large-scale comparisons). Finally, we articulate implications for validity arguments and score use by proposing that evidence about engagement (distributions of RTE, item-position trends, CR/MC differentials) become part of routine program monitoring and reporting, with feasibility considerations noted for short tests, small samples, and low prevalence of disengagement.

Our synthesis converges on a simple but consequential insight: assessment scores reflect both what students know and what they are willing to demonstrate under specific conditions. When the assumption of sufficient effort is violated—particularly in low-stakes contexts, longer sessions, and demanding or late-position items—construct-irrelevant variance is introduced that can compromise item calibration, distort reliability and validity evidence, and mislead classroom and system-level decisions. At the same time, maximal effort may not always be necessary; the sufficiency of engagement depends on the intended interpretation and use. Accordingly, programs and researchers should: (1) monitor effort routinely using brief self-report and process data; (2) report effort-aware indicators alongside scores for formative uses; (3) consider analytic adjustments such as motivation filtering or effort-moderated models where decisions warrant it; and (4) design assessments with engagement in mind (balanced item types, strategic breaks, clear relevance cues). Advancing theory that connects expectancy–value appraisals with item-level behaviors, emotions like boredom, and performance will sharpen predictions about when and for whom disengagement arises. With continued refinement of probabilistic engagement indices and practical operational guidelines, integrating effort into validity arguments can render interpretations fairer, more accurate, and better aligned with the realities of modern assessment.

Eklöf, H. (2010). Skill and will: Test-taking motivation and assessment quality. Assessment in Education, 17(4), 345–356. Eklöf, H., & Knekta, E. (2017). Using large-scale educational data to test motivation theories. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 4(1–2), 52–71. Goldhammer, F., Martens, T., & Lüdtke, O. (2017). Conditioning factors of test-taking engagement in PIAAC. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(18), 1–25. Lindner, M. A., Lüdtke, O., & Nagy, G. (2019). The onset of rapid-guessing behavior over the course of testing time. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1533. Michaelides, M. P., & Ivanova, M. (2022). Response time as an indicator of test-taking effort in PISA. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 64(3), 304–338. Michaelides, M. P., Ivanova, M., & Avraam, D. (2024). The impact of filtering out rapid-guessing examinees on PISA 2015 country rankings. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 66(1), 50–62. Rios, J. (2021). Improving test-taking effort in low-stakes group-based educational testing: A meta-analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 34(2), 85–106. Silm, G., Pedaste, M., & Täht, K. (2020). The relationship between performance and test-taking effort: A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 31, 100335. Wise, S. L. (2017). Rapid-guessing behavior: Its identification, interpretation, and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 36(4), 52–61. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 1–17. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2006). An application of item response time: The effort-moderated IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(1), 19–38. Wise, S. L., & Smith, L. F. (2016). The validity of assessment when students don’t give good effort. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 204–220). Routledge.