Which Model is Best? Robustness Properties to Justify Model Choice Among Unidimensional IRT Models under Item Parameter Drift

Alberta Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 264-276

  Rupp, André A ^a,d   Zumbo, Bruno D ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Msrmt Eval/Research Methodology

^c Institute of Applied Mathematics

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0348230340     PISSN: 00024805     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Junker, B.W. (1999). Some statistical models and computational methods that may be useful for cognitively-relevant assessment. Unpublished manuscript. Available online at http://www.stat.cmu.edu/̃brian/nrc/cfa
2. Perline, R., Wright, B.D., & Wainer, H. (1979). The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 237-255.
3. Rupp, A.A. (2002). Feature selection for choosing and assembling measurement models: A building-block based organization. International Journal of Testing, 3 & 4, 311-360.
4. Rupp, A.A., & Zumbo, B.D. (2003, April). Bias coefficients for lack of invariance in unidimensional IRT models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, Chicago.
5. Rupp, A.A., Dey, D.K. & Zumbo, B.D. (in press). To Bayes or not to Bayes, from whether to when: Applications of Bayesian methodology to item response modeling. Structural Equation Modeling.
6. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
7. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG: Multiple category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
8. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1984). A response model for multiple-choice items. Psychometrika, 49, 501-519.
9. Traub, R.E. (1983). A priori considerations in choosing an item response model. In R.K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 57-70). Vancouver, BC: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
10. van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Wells, C.S., Subkoviak, M.J., & Serlin, R.C. (2002). The effect of item parameter drift on examinee ability estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 77-87.
12. Zimowski, M.F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R.J., & Bock, R.D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.