Comparing Multidimensional and Unidimensional Proficiency Classifications: Multidimensional IRT as a Diagnostic Aid

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 255-275

  Walker, Cindy M ^a   Beretvas, S Natasha ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347592506     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01107.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Creating a test information profile for a two-dimensional latent space. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 257-275.
2. Ackerman, T. A., & Evans, J. A. (1994). The influence of conditioning scores in performing DIF analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 329-342.
3. Beretvas, S. N., & Walker, C. M. (2000, April) Proficiency level classification compared using Rasch versus non-Rasch models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA
4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
5. CTB/McGraw-Hill (2001). Terra nova technical report. Monterey, CA: Author.
6. Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613-619.
7. Fraser, C. (1988). NOHARM: An IBM PC computer program for fitting both unidimensional and multidimensional normal ogive models of latent trait theory. Armddale, Australia: The University of New England.
8. Hart, P. D., & Teeter, R. M. (2001). A measured response: Americans speak on educational reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Harwell, M., Stone, C. A., Hsu, T-C., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101-125.
10. Kelderman, H., & Rijkes, C. P. M. (1994). Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scored items. Psychometrika, 59, 149-176.
11. Luecht, R. M. (1992). 2D-EAP. Bayesian estimation software program for computing two-dimensional expected a posteriori IRT proficiency scores, based on the multidimensional three-parameter normal ogive model. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
12. Luecht, R. M., & Miller, T. M. (1992). Unidimensional calibrations and interpretations of composite traits for multidimensional tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 279-293.
13. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99-114.
15. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
17. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
19. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (1998a). Washington assessment of student learning, grade 4 technical report for 1998. Olympia, WA: Author.
20. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (1998b). Washington assessment of student learning, grade 7 technical report for 1998. Olympia, WA: Author.
21. Public Agenda (2000, February 16). Reality check 2000. Educational Review. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew
22. Reckase, M. D. (1990, April). Unidimensional data from multidimensional tests and multidimensional data from unidimensional tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
23. Reckase, M. D., Carlson, J. E., Ackerman, T. A., & Spray, J. A. (1986, June). The interpretation of unidimensional IRT parameters estimated from multidimensional data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
24. Reckase, M. D., & McKinley, R. L. (1991). The discrimination power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 361-373.
25. Romberg, T. A., Zarinnia, A., & Collis, K. (1990). A new world view of assessment in mathematics. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics, (pp. 21-38). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
26. Shepard, L. A. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46, 4-9.
27. Silver, E. A., & Kenney, P. A. (1995). Sources of assessment information in instructional guidance in mathematics. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Reform in school mathematics and authentic assessment (pp. 38-86). Albany: State University of New York Press.
28. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide - Version 6. Chicago: Scientific Software, Inc.
29. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
30. Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2001). An empirical investigation demonstrating the multidimensional DIF paradigm: A cognitive explanation for DIF. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 147-163.
31. Way, W. D., Ansley, T. N., & Forsyth, R. A. (1988). The comparative effects of compensatory and noncompensatory two-dimensional data on unidimensional IRT estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 239-252.