Skip to main content

Partial Credit Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

For some measuring instruments, item responses may reflect a degree of correctness (or a degree of appropriateness in the case of survey questionnaires) in the answer to a question, rather than being simply classified as correct/incorrect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This probability is not 0.5, but less than 0.5, because the probability of being in categories other than k − 1 and k is not zero.

References

  • Adams RJ, Wu ML, Wilson M (2012) The Rasch rating model and the disordered threshold controversy. Educ Psychol Measur 72:547–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen EB (1997) The rating scale model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 67–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich DA (1978) A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43:561–573

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Masters GN (1982) A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47:149–174

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Masters GN, Wright BD (1997) The partial credit model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 101–121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muraki E (1992) A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Appl Psychol Meas 16:159–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraki E (1997) A generalized partial credit model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 153–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samejima F (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monogr, No, p 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima F (1997) Graded response model. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 85–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verhelst ND, Glas CAW, de Vries HH (1997) A steps model to analyse partial credit. In: van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, NY, pp 123–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verhelst ND, Verstralen HHFM (1997) Modeling sums of binary responses by the partial credit model. Cito Measurement and Research Department Reports, pp 97–107. Cito

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Ostini R, Nering ML (2006) Polytomous item response theory models. Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Wu .

Appendices

Discussion Points

  1. 1.

    For a partial credit item, there is a requirement that score categories are “ordered”. Discuss the meaning of “ordered” in this requirement. (You can consider the meaning of “ordered” in relation to ability, difficulty, expected score, probability of success, etc.)

  2. 2.

    A serious misconception about the treatment of dis-ordered thresholds is that when two categories have reversed \( \delta \), one must reverse-score the categories (e.g., code category 2 as 1, and category 1 as 2). Discuss why this should NOT be done. Under what situations should the scoring be reversed?

Exercises

  1. Q1.

    Plot the ICC of a 3-category PCM item in a spreadsheet with \( \delta_{1} \) and \( \delta_{2} \) as parameters. For example,

Change the values of \( \delta_{1} \) and \( \delta_{2} \) and see how the ICCs change. In particular, try ordered \( \delta_{1} \) and \( \delta_{2} \), and dis-ordered \( \delta_{1} \) and \( \delta_{2} \).

An extension of this exercise is to add simulated item responses for each student, and plot the observed item characteristic curves as well.

  1. Q2.

    Indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements

A response category has very few students. So the response category should be collapsed with an adjacent category

Agree/disagree

Collapsing score categories of an item should have no impact on the fit of the item

Agree/disagree

Item A has a maximum score of 4. Item B has a maximum score of 2. Item A must be more difficult than Item B

Agree/disagree

When dis-ordered thresholds are observed, this indicates that the item does not fit the PCM

Agree/disagree

When dis-ordered thresholds are observed, this indicates that high ability students have a lower expected score than low ability students

Agree/disagree

When dis-ordered thresholds are observed, we should reverse score the response categories

Agree/disagree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wu, M., Tam, H.P., Jen, TH. (2016). Partial Credit Model. In: Educational Measurement for Applied Researchers. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3302-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics