Advertisement

Multidimensional Item Response Theory Models

  • Mark D. Reckase
Chapter
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)

Abstract

As the previous chapters suggest, it is not difficult to conceive of test items that require more than one hypothetical construct to determine the correct response. However, when describing multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models, care should be taken to distinguish between dimensions as defined by MIRT models, which represent statistical abstractions of the observed data, and the hypothetical constructs that represent cognitive or affective dimensions of variation in a population of examinees. The earlier chapters present some of those distinctions. This chapter will elaborate on the distinctions between coordinates and constructs and the distinctions will be given additional treatment in Chaps. 6 and 7.

Keywords

Correct Response Test Item Item Parameter Score Category Compensatory Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams RJ, Wilson M, Wang W (1997) The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 21:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolt DM, Lall VF (2003) Estimation of compensatory and noncompensatory multidimensional item response models using Markov chain Monte Carlo. Applied Psychological Measurement 27:395–414CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Camilli G (1994) Origin of the scaling constant d = 1.7 in item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 19:293–295Google Scholar
  4. Kelderman H, Rijkes CPM (1994) Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scored items. Psychometrika 59:149–176CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Lord FM (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Maris E (1995) Psychometric latent response models. Psychometrika 60:523–547CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Muraki E, Carlson JE (1993) Full-information factor analysis for polytomous item responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  9. Rasch G (1962) On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability 4:321–334Google Scholar
  10. Samejima F (1974) Normal ogive model on the continuous response level in the multidimensional space. Psychometrika 39:111–121CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Spray JA, Davey TC, Reckase MD, Ackerman TA, Carlson JE (1990) Comparison of two logistic multidimensional item response theory models (Research Report ONR90-8). ACT, Inc., Iowa City, IAGoogle Scholar
  12. Sympson JB (1978) A model for testing with multidimensional items. In Weiss DJ (ed) Proceedings of the 1977 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  13. van der Ark LA (2001) Relationships and properties of polytomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement 25:273–282CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Whitely SE (1980b) Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika 45: 479–494CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Yao L, Schwarz R (2006) A multidimensional partial credit model with associated item and test statistics: An application to mixed-format tests. Applied Psychological Measurement 30: 469–492CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Zimowski MF, Muraki E, Mislevy RJ, Bock RD (2003) BILOG-MG for Windows. Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. McDonald RP (1967) Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometric Monograph 15Google Scholar
  18. Haley DC (1952) Estimation of the dosage mortality relationship when the dose is subject to error (Technical Report No. 15). Stanford University Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Muraki E, Carlson JE (1993) Full-information factor analysis for polytomous item responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  20. Yao L, Schwarz R (2006) A multidimensional partial credit model with associated item and test statistics: An application to mixed-format tests. Applied Psychological Measurement 30: 469–492CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelderman H (1994) Objective measurement with multidimensional polytomous latent trait models. In Wilson M (ed) Objective measurement: Theory into practice, Vol. 2. Ablex, Norwood NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Samejima F (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph Supplement, 34 (Monograph No. 17)Google Scholar
  23. Hambleton R, Swaminathan H (1983) Item response theory: principles and applications. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. Bock RD, Aitkin M (1981) Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Applications of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46:443–459CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Bock RD, Schilling SG (2003) IRT based item factor analysis. In M du Toit (ed) IRT from SSI: BILOG-MG, MULTILOG, PARSCALE, TESTFACT (pp. 584–591). Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  26. Maris E (1995) Psychometric latent response models. Psychometrika 60:523–547CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Counseling, Educational, Psychology, and Special Education DepartmentMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations