Modelling mathematics problem solving item responses using a multidimensional IRT model

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 93-113

  Wu, Margaret ^a   Adams, Raymond J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77049115493     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03217438     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Wang, W. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1-23
2. Adams, R. J., & Wu, M. L. (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: OECD
3. nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
4. Bonotto, C. (2003). Suspension of sense-making in mathematical word problem solving: A possible remedy. Retrieved August 16, 2003, from http://math. unipa. it/-grim/Jbonotto
5. Cai, J., & Silver, E. A. (1995). Solution processes and interpretations of solutions in solving division-with-remainder story problems: Do Chinese and U. S. students have similar difficulties? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 491-497
6. Carroll, J. B. (1945). The effect of difficulty and chance success on correlations between items or between tests. Psychometrika, 10, 1-19
7. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
8. Carroll, J. B. (1996). Mathematical abilities: Some results from factor analysis. In R. J. Sternberg & B.-Z. Talia (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
9. Collis, K. F., & Romberg, T. A. (1992). Collis-Romberg mathematical problem solving profiles. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research
10. Cornish, G., & Wines, R. (1977). Mathematics profiles series: Operations test teachers handbook. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research
11. De Lange, J. (1996). Using and applying mathematics in education. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 49-98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
12. Ellerton, N. F., & Clarkson, P. C. (1996). Language factors in mathematics teaching and learning. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 987-1033). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
13. Embretsons, S. E. (1991). A multidimensional latent trait model for measuring learning and change. Psychometrika, 56, 495-515
14. Embretson, S. E. (1997). Multicomponent response models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag
15. Fredriksen, J., Mislevy, R. J., & Bejar, I. (Eds.) (1991). Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
16. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 1(2), 155-177
17. Hambleton, R. K., & Rovinelli, R. J. (1986). Assessing the dimensionality of a set of test items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 287-302
18. Heim, A. W. (1975). Psychological testing. London: Oxford University Press
19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: Abt
20. Lincare, J. M. (1998). Detecting multidimensionality: Which residual data-type works best? Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(3), 266-283
21. Malone, J. A., Douglas, G. A., Kissane, B. V., & Mortlock, R. S. (1980). Measuring problem-solving ability. In S. Krulik & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in school mathematics (pp. 204-215). Reston, VA: NCTM
22. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174
23. Masters, G. N. & Doig, B. A. (1992). Understanding children's mathematics: Some assessment tools. In G. Leder (Ed.), Assessment and learning of mathematics. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research
24. Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). In R. J. Sternberg & B.-Z. Talia (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
25. McDonald, R. P., & Ahlawat, K. S. (1974). Difficulty factors in binary data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 82-99
26. Nandakumar, R. (1994). Assessing latent trait unidimensionality of a set of items-Comparison of different approaches. Journal of Educational Measurements, 31, 1-18
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM
28. Nesher, P. (1980). The stereotyped nature of school word problems. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(1), 41-48
29. Newman, M. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils' errors on written mathematical tasks. Victorian Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31-43
30. Newman, M. A. (1983). Strategies for diagnosis and remediation. Sydney: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich
31. OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Paris: OECD
32. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
33. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research
34. Romberg, T., & de Lange, J. (1998). Mathematics in context. Chicago: Britannica Mathematics System
35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Episodes and executive decisions in mathematical problem solving. In R. Lesh & M. Landau, M. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 345-395). New York: Academic
36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. E. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311-343). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
37. Silver, E. A. (1982). Knowledge organisation and mathematical problem solving. In F. K. Lester & J. & Garafalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research. Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press
38. Smith, R. M., & Miao, C. Y. (1994). Assessing unidimensionality for Rasch measurement. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 316-327) Norwood, NJ: Ablex
39. Stacey, K., Groves, S., Bourke, S., & Doig, B. (1993). Profiles of problem solving. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research
40. Treffers, A. (1986). Three dimensions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel
41. Verhelst, N. D., Glas, C. A. W., & de Vries, H. H. (1997). A steps model to analyze partial credit. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag
42. Verhelst, N. D. (2001). Some thoughts on reliability. Unpublished manuscript
43. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B. & de Corte E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, Switzerland: Swets & Zeitlinger
44. Wang, W. (1998). Rasch analysis of distractors in multiple-choice items. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1), 43-65
45. th ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
46. Willmott, A. S., & Fowles, D. E. (1974). The objective interpretation of test performance. Windsor, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing
47. Linacre, M. J., & Wright, B. D. (2000). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program [Computer software], Chicago: MESA Press
48. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press
49. Wu, M. L. (2004). The application of item response theory to measure problem-solving proficiencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne
50. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ConQuest: Multi-aspect test software [Computer software]. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research