Advertisement

Comparison of Three Unidimensional Approaches to Represent a Two-Dimensional Latent Ability Space

  • Terry AckermanEmail author
  • Ye Ma
  • Edward Ip
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 265)

Abstract

All test data represent the interaction of examinee abilities with individual test items. It has been argued that for most tests these interactions result in, either unintentionally or intentionally, multidimensional response data. Despite this realization, many standardized tests report a single score which follows from fitting a unidimensional model to the response data. This process is justified with the understanding that the response data, when analyzed, say for example by a principal component analysis, have a strong, valid, and content identifiable first component and weaker minor inconsequential components. It is believed that the resulting observed score scale represents primarily a valid composite of abilities that are intended to be measured. This study examines three approaches which estimate unidimensional item and ability parameters based on the parameters obtained from a two-dimensional calibration of the response data. The goal of this study is to compare the results of the different approaches to see which best captures the results of the two-dimensional calibration.

References

  1. Camilli, G. (1992). A conceptual analysis of differential item functioning in terms of a multidimensional item response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers, P. R. (2012). Mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ip, E. H. (2010). Empirically indistinguishable multidimensional IRT and locally dependent unidimensional item response models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 395–415.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612462759.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ip, E. H., & Chen, S. H. (2012). Projective item response model for test-independent measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 581–601.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612452778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang, M. (1986, April). Fitting a unidimensional model to multidimensional response data. Paper presented at the ONR Contractors Conference, Gatlinburg, TN.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169101500103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Zhang, J., & Wang, M. (1998, April). Relating reported scores to latent traits in a multidimensional test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Quantitative FoundationsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Wake Forest School of MedicineWake Forest University, Bowman Gray Center for Medical EducationWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations