Comparison of NOHARM and DETECT in item cluster recovery: Counting dimensions and allocating items

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 149-169

  Finch, Holmes ^a   Habing, Brian ^b  

^a BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21644458071     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00008     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 255-278.
2. Agresti, A. (1991). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
3. Donoghue, J. R., & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131-154.
4. Finch, H., & Habing, B. (2003). Performance of DIMTEST and NOHARM based statistics for testing unidimensionality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
5. Fleishman, A. I. (1978). A method for simulating non-normal distributions. Psychometrika, 43, 521-532.
6. Fraser, C., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). NOHARM: Least squares item factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 267-269.
7. Gessaroli, M. E., & De Champlain, A. F. (1996). Using an approximate Chi-square statistic to test the number of dimensions underlying the responses to a set of items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 157-179.
8. Gessaroli, M. E., De Champlain, A. F., & Folske. (1997). Assessing dimensionality using a likelihood-ratio chi-square test based on a non-linear factor analysis of item response data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL, March 25-27, 1997.
9. Headrick, T. C., & Sawilosky, S. S. (1999). Simulating correlated multivariate nonnormal distributions: Extending the Fleishman power method. Psychometrika, 64, 25-35.
10. Kim, H. R. (1994). New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. Published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
11. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2001). Multidimensional item response theory modeling of binary data: Large sample properties of NOHARM estimates. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26, 51-71.
13. McDonald, R. P. (1967). Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometric Monographs, No. 15.
14. McDonald, R. P. (1997). Normal-ogive multidimensional model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 257-269). New York: Springer.
15. McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99-114.
16. Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W. (1993). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 18, 41-68.
17. Reckase, M. D. (1997). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 271-286). New York: Springer.
18. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 53, 349-359.
19. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1988). Item bundles. Psychometrika, 49, 425-435.
20. Roussos, L. A., Stout, W. F., & Marden, J. I. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 1-30.
21. Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
22. Stout, W. F., Habing, B., Douglas, J., Kim, H. R., Roussos, L., & Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based nonparametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 331-354.
23. Tanaka, J. S. (1993) Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 19-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
24. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Item response theory: Brief history, common models, and extensions. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 1-28). New York: Springer.
25. Wainer, H., Vevea, J. L., Camacho, F., Reeve, B. B., Rosa, K., Nelson, K. A., Swygert, K. A., & Thissen, D. (2001). Augmented scores - "borrowing strength" to compute scores based on small numbers of items. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 343-387).
26. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125-145.
27. Zhang, J., & Stout, W. F. (1999a). Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika, 64, 129-152.
28. Zhang, J., & Stout, W. F. (1999b). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213-249.