Application of unidimensional item response models to tests with items sensitive to secondary dimensions

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 147-166

  Zhang, Bo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ability estimation; DIMTEST; Item response theory; Robustness; Unidimensionality assumption

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649563193     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JEXE.77.2.147-166     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 255-278.
2. Almond, P., Heath, B., Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M., & Tindal, G. (1993). Reading as an access to mathematics problem solving on multiple-choice tests for sixth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 113-124.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
4. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when the responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
5. Bolt, D. (1999). Evaluating the effects of multidimensionality on IRT true-score equating. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 383-407.
6. Chen, W-H., & Thissen, D. (1999). Estimation of item parameters for the three-parameter logistic model using the marginal likelihood of summed scores. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 52, 19-37.
7. De Champlain, A. F. (1996). The effect of multidimensionality on IRT true-score equating for subgroups of examinees. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 181-201.
8. Drasgow, F., Levine, M., & Williams, E. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67-86.
9. Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 189-199.
10. Fraser, C., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). NOHARM: Least squares item factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 267-269.
11. Glas, C. A. W., & Falcon, J. C. S. (2003). A comparison of the item-fit statistics for the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 87-106.
12. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer.
13. Harwell, M., Stone, C. A., Hsu, T. C., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101-126.
14. Kirisci, L., Hsu, T., & Yu, L. (2001). Robustness of item parameter estimation programs to assumptions of unidimensionality and normality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 146-162.
15. Lee, K., & Oshima, T. C. (1996). IPLINK: Multidimensional and unidimensional item parameter linking in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 230.
16. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Luecht, R., & Miller, T. (1992). Unidimensional calibrations and interpretations of composite traits for multidimensional test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 279-293.
18. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B., Z., Rankin, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG: Maximum likelihood item analysis and test scoring with logistic models for binary items. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
20. Molenaar, I. W., & Hoijtink, H. (1990). The many null distributions of person fit indices. Psychometrika, 55, 75-106.
21. Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). Refinement of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 41-68.
22. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50-64.
23. Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289-298.
24. Oshima, T. C, & Miller, M. (1992). Multidimensionality and item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 237-248.
25. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
26. Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401-412.
27. 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-Verlag.
28. Reckase, M. D., Ackerman, T. A., & Carlson, J. E. (1988). Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 193-203.
29. Reckase, M. D., & McKinley, R. L. (1991). The discriminating power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 361-373.
30. Smith, J., & Habing, B. (2007). 'Intuitive' interpretation of MIRT model parameters. Paper presented at annual conference of American Educational Researcher Association, Chicago, IL.
31. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
32. Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of IRT models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 331-352.
33. Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality, Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
34. Tate, R. (2004). Implications of multidimensionality for total score and subscore performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 89-112.
35. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG: Multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
36. Traub, R. (1983). A prior consideration in choosing an item response model. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory. Vancouver, British Columbia: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
37. Walker, C. M., & Beretvas, S. N. (2003). Comparing multidimensional and unidimensional proficiency classifications: Multidimensional IRT as a diagnostic aid. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 255-275.
38. Wood, R., Wilson, D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S., Muraki, E., & Bock, D. (2003). TESTFACT 4: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
39. Yen, W. M. (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245-262.