A Latent Class Covariate Model with Applications to Criterion-Referenced Testing

  • C. Mitchell Dayton
  • George B. Macready

Abstract

Modern developments of latent class models as pioneered by Lazarsfeld and Henry (1968) and extended by Proctor (1970), Goodman (1974, 1975), Haberman (1974, 1979), Dayton and Macready (1976, 1980a), and others have found a variety of applications in the social and behavioral sciences. An area of special interest has been criterion referenced testing, where latent class models offer an attractive and powerful alternative to latent trait models (Macready & Dayton, 1980). Latent class models can directly represent mastery/nonmastery status and have the advantage of permitting an objective determination of cutting scores for mastery classification (Macready & Dayton, 1977). Recently, there has been interest in extending latent class models to include information from concomitant variables, or covariates. Although categorical concomitant variables (i.e., variables used to group respondents) can be incorporated systematically into current latent class formulations (Clogg & Goodman, 1984, 1985, 1986; Macready & Dayton, 1980) and estimation carried out using available computer programs (e.g., Clogg, 1977), this chapter develops a more general model in which latent class membership is functionally related to one or more categorical and/or continuous concomitant variables (see Dayton & Macready, 1980b for a restricted model of this type).

Keywords

Latent Class Latent Class Analysis Latent Class Model Intrusion Error Concomitant Variable 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitkin, M., Anderson, D., and Hinde, J. (1981). Statistical modelling of data on teaching styles. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 144–4A, 419–461.Google Scholar
  2. Alvord, G., and Macready, G. B. (1985). Comparing fit of nonsubsuming probability models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. C. (1970). A method for discriminating between models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 3, 323–345.Google Scholar
  4. Clogg, C. C. (1977). Unrestricted and restricted maximum likelihood latent structure analysis: A manual for users (Working Paper No. 1977–09). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  5. Clogg, C. C., and Goodman, L. A. (1984). Latent structure analysis of a set of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 762–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clogg, C. C., and Goodman, L. A. Simultaneous latent structure analysis in several groups. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological Methods 1985. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Clogg, C. C., and Goodman, L. A. (1986). On scaling models applied to data from several groups. Psychometrika, 51, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, D. R. (1961). Tests of separate families of hypotheses. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1, 105–123.Google Scholar
  9. Dayton, C. M., and Macready, G. B. (1976). A probabilistic model for validation of behavioral hierarchies. Psychometrika, 41, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayton, C. M., and Macready, G. B. (1980a). A scaling model with response errors and intrinsically unscalable respondents. Psychometrika, 45, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayton, C. M., and Macready, G. B. (1980b). Concomitant-variable latent class models. Paper presented at Psychometric Society annual meeting, Iowa City.Google Scholar
  12. Dayton, C. M., and Macready, G. B. (1987). MODMULT and MoDBIN: Microcomputer Programs for Concomitant Variable Latent Class Models. American Statistician, 41, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Efron, B. (1984). Comparing non-nested linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 791–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Everitt, B. S., and Hand, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distributions. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, L. A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman, L. A. (1975). A new model for scaling response patterns: An application of the quasi-independence concept. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haberman, S. J. (1974). Log-linear model for frequency tables derived by indirect observation: Maximum-likelihood equations. Annals of Statistics, 2, 911–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haberman, S. J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol. 2. New developments. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lazarsfeld, P. A., and Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Miffiin.Google Scholar
  20. Macready, G. B., and Dayton, C. M. (1977). The use of probabilistic models in the assessment of mastery. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macready, G. B., and Dayton, C. M. (1980). The nature and use of state mastery models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 493–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parzen, E. (1960). Modern probability theory and its applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Proctor, C. H. (1970). A probabilistic formulation and statistical analysis of Guttman scaling. Psychometrika, 35, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Mitchell Dayton
    • 1
  • George B. Macready
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation, College of EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations