Advertisement

Graphical Representations of Items and Tests That are Measuring Multiple Abilities

  • Terry A. AckermanEmail author
  • Robert A. Henson
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 89)

Abstract

This article compares graphical representations of items and tests for four different multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models: compensatory logistic model, the noncompensatory logistic model, a noncompensatory diagnostic model (DINA), and a compensatory diagnostic model (CRUM/GDM). Graphical representations can provide greater insight for measurement specialists and item/test developers about the validity and reliability of the multidimensional tests. They also can provide a link between quantitative analyses and substantive interpretations of the score scale and inform the test development process.

References

  1. Ackerman TA (1994a) Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Appl Meas Educ 7:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman TA (1994b) Creating a test information profile in a two-dimensional latent space. Appl Psychol Meas 18:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman TA (1996) Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Appl Psychol Meas 20(4):311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ackerman T, Gierl M, Walker C (2003) Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate educational and psychological tests. Educ Meas Issues Pract 22(Fall):37–53Google Scholar
  5. CA-DISSPLA (Version 11) (1987) [Computer software]. Islandia: Computer Associates International, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Chang HH, Ying Z (1996) A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Appl Psychol Meas 20:213–229Google Scholar
  7. Henson R, Douglas J (2005) Test construction for cognitive diagnosis. Appl Psychol Meas 29(4):262–277CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Junker B, Sijtsma K (2001) Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Appl Psychol Meas 25(3):258–272CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Reckase MD (1985) The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Appl Psychol Meas 9:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reckase MD, McKinley RL (1991) The discrimination power of items that measure more than one dimension. Appl Psychol Meas 14:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rupp A, Templin J, Henson R (2010) Diagnostic measurement theory: methods and applications. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations