Multiple-Attempt, Single-Item Response Models

  • Judith A. Spray


The psychomotor literature has seen the appearance of several papers that have described the proposed or actual use of item resonse theory (IRT) models in the measurement of psychomotor skills (Costa et al., 1989; Safrit et al., 1989; Spray, 1987, 1989). These IRT models were originally developed for use with the assessment of either cognitive or affective behaviors but could be used on psychomotor responses in some situations. In order to use these models with psychomotor responses, the data have been frequently treated as though the responses had been obtained from mental tests. For example, a study by Safrit et al. (1992) examined the number of sit-ups that an examinee could perform within a 60-second time limit The number of sit-ups completed were dichotomized as pass/fail or 1/0 responses according to a cutoff or criterion score, so that the data could be used in an IRT model commonly used for multiple-choice items. Several sit-up tests were administered to an examinee and each test varied by difficulty. This series of sit-up tests resulted in a response vector or string of dichotomous responses for each examinee, which were then treated as typical 1/0 or right/wrong responses to a cognitive test. The dichotomized responses were subsequently fitted to a two-parameter logistic model (2-PLM).


Item Response Theory Psychomotor Skill Item Response Model Likelihood Equation Difficulty Parameter 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, E.B. (1980). Discrete Statistical Models with Social Science Applications. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrich, D. (1978a). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 561 - 573.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrich, D. (1978b). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement 2, 581 - 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, R.D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika 37, 29 - 51.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa, M.G., Safrit, M.J., and Cohen, A.S. (1989). A comparison of two item response theory models used with a measure of motor behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 60, 325 - 335.Google Scholar
  6. Feldt, L.S. and Spray, J.A. (1983). A theory-based comparison of the reliabilities of fixed-length and trials-to-criterion scoring of physical education skills tests. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 54, 324 - 329.Google Scholar
  7. Looney, M.A. and Spray, J.A. (1992). Effects of violating local independence on IRT parameter estimation for the binomials trials model. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 63, 356 - 359.Google Scholar
  8. Masters, G.N. and Wright, B.D. (1984). The essential process in a family of measurement models. Psychometrika 49, 529 - 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Safrit, M.J., Costa, M.G., and Cohen, A.S. (1989). Item response theory and the measurement of motor behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 60, 325 - 335.Google Scholar
  10. Safrit, M.J., Zhu, W., Costa, M.G., and Zhang, L. (1992). The difficulty of sit-ups tests: An empirical investigation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 63, 277 - 283.Google Scholar
  11. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, No. 17.Google Scholar
  12. Samejima, F. (1973). Homogeneous case of the continuous response model. Psychometrika 38, 203 - 219.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shifflett, B. (1985). Reliability estimation for trials-to-criterion testing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 56, 266 - 274.Google Scholar
  14. Spray, J.A. (1987). Recent developments in measurement and possible applications to the measurement of psychomotor behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 58, 203 - 209.Google Scholar
  15. Spray, J.A. (1989). New approaches to solving measurement problems. In M.J. Safrit and T.M. Wood (Eds.), Measurement Concepts in Physical Education and Exercise Science (pp. 229 - 248 ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  16. Spray, J.A. and Newell, K.M. (1986). Time series analysis of motor learning: KR versus no-KR. Human Movement Science 5, 59 - 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith A. Spray

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations