A Response Model for Multiple-Choice Items
In the mid-1960s, Samejima initiated the development of item response models that involve separate response functions for all of the alternatives in the multiple choice and Likert-type formats. Her work in this area began at the Educational Testing Service and continued during a visit to the L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory at the University of North Carolina. Both Samejima’s (1969; this volume) original model for graded item responses and Bock’s (1972; this volume) model for nominal responses were originally intended to produce response functions for all of the alternatives of multiple-choice items. For various reasons, neither model has proved entirely satisfactory for that purpose, although both have been applied in other contexts. Using a combination of ideas suggested by Bock (1972) and Samejima (1968, 1979), a multiple-choice model was developed that produces response functions that fit unidimensional multiple-choice tests better (Thissen and Steinberg, 1984); that model is the subject of this chapter.
KeywordsResponse Function Differential Item Functioning Item Response Theory Item Analysis Item Parameter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1950). The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. In S.A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E.A. Suchman, P.F. Lazarsfeld, S.A. Star, and J.A. Clausen, Measurement and Prediction (pp. 362–412 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ramsay, J.O. (1992). TESTGRAF: A Program for the Graphical Analysis of Multiple Choice Test and Questionnaire Data (Technical Report). Montreal, Quebec: McGill University.Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1968). Application of the Graded Response Model to the Nominal Response and Multiple Choice Situations (Research Report #63). Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, L.L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, No. 17.Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1979). A New Family of Models for the Multiple Choice Item (Research Report #79–4). Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
- Steinberg, L. and Thissen, D. ( 1984, June). Some Consequences of Non-Monotonic Trace Lines in Item Response Theory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
- Sympson, J.B. (1983, June). A New IRT Model for Calibrating Multiple Choice Items. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG User’s Guide-Version 6. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
- Thissen, D. and Steinberg, L. (1984). A response model for multiple choice items. Psychometrika 49, 501–519.Google Scholar
- Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., and Wainer, H. (1993). Detection of differential item functioning using the parameters of item response models. In P.W. Holland and H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential Item Functioning (pp. 67113 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Wainer, H. (1989). The future of item analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement 26, 191–208.Google Scholar