A Linear Logistic Multidimensional Model for Dichotomous Item Response Data

  • Mark D. Reckase


Since the implementation of large-scale achievement and ability testing in the early 1900s, cognitive test tasks, or test items, that are scored as either incorrect (0) or correct (1) have been quite commonly used (DuBois, 1970). Even though performance on these test tasks is frequently summarized by a single total score, often a sum of item scores, it is also widely acknowledged that multiple skills or abilities are required to determine the correct answers to these tasks. Snow (1993) states

“The general conclusion seems to be that complex cognitive processing is involved in performance even on simple tasks. In addition to multiple processes, it is clear that performers differ in strategies....”


Test Item Differential Item Functioning Computerize Adaptive Test Test Task Person 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. Ackerman, T.A. (1988). Comparison of multidimensional IRT estimation procedures using benchmark data. Paper presented at the ONR Contractors’ Meeting, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, T.A. (1990). An evaluation of the multidimensional parallelism of the EAAP Mathematics Test. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Google Scholar
  3. American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Ackerman, T.A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement 29(1), 67–91.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, J.E. (1987). Multidimensional item response theory estimation: A computer program (Research Report ONR 87–2 ). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.Google Scholar
  6. DuBois, P.H. (1970). A History of Psychological Testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Fraser, C. (1986). NOHARM: An IBM PC Computer Program for Fitting Both Unidimensional and Multidimensional Normal Ogive Models of Latent Trait Theory. Armidale, Australia: The University of New England.Google Scholar
  8. Horst, P. (1965). Factor Analysis of Data Matrices. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Lord, F.M. (1980). Application of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Lord, F.M. and Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. McDonald, R.P. (1985). Unidimensional and multidimensional models for item response theory. In D.J. Weiss (Ed), Proceedings of the 1982 Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 127–148 ). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  12. McKinley, R.L. (1987). User’s Guide to MULTIDIM. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  13. McKinley, R.L. and Reckase, M.D. (1982). The Use of the General Rasch Model with Multidimensional Item Response Data. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.Google Scholar
  14. McKinley, R.L. and Reckase, M.D. (1983). MAXLOG: A computer program for the estimation of the parameters of a multidimensional logistic model. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 15, 389–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, T.R. (1991). Empirical Estimation of Standard Errors of Compensatory MIRT Model Parameters Obtained from the NOHARM Estimation Program (Research Report ONR91–2). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, T.R. and Hirsch, T.M. (1990). Cluster Analysis of Angular Data in Applications of Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, T.R. and Hirsch, T.M. (1992). Cluster analysis of angular data in applications of multidimensional item-response theory. Applied Measurement in Education 5 (3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mislevy, R.J. and Bock, R.D. (1989). BILOG: Item Analysis and Test Scoring with Binary Logistic Models. Chicago: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  19. Reckase, M.D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement 9 (4), 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reckase, M.D. (1989). Controlling the Psychometric Snake: Or, How I Learned to Love Multimensionality. Invited address at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  21. Reckase, M.D. and Hirsch, T.M. (1991). Interpretation of Number Correct Scores When the True Number of Dimensions Assessed by a Test is Greater Than Two. Paper presented at the Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Reckase, M.D. and McKinley, R.L. (1991). The discriminating power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement 14(4), 361–373.Google Scholar
  23. Samejima, F. (1974). Normal ogive model for the continuous response level in the multidimensional latent space. Psychometrika 39, 111-121.Google Scholar
  24. Snow, R.E. (1993). Construct validity and constructed-response tests. In R.E. Bennett and W.C. Ward (Eds), Construction Versus Choice in Cognitive Measurement: Issues in Constructed Response, Performance Testing, and Portfolio Assessment (pp. 45–60 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Wingersky, M.S., Barton, M.A., and Lord, F.M. (1982). LOGIST User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark D. Reckase

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations