Item Response Theory analysis and Differential Item Functioning across age, gender and country of a short form of the Advanced Progressive Matrices

Learning and Individual Differences

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 390-396

  Chiesi, Francesca ^a   Ciancaleoni, Matteo ^a   Galli, Silvia ^a   Morsanyi, Kinga ^b   Primi, Caterina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advanced progressive matrices; Differential item functioning; Fluid ability; Item response theory; Short form

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859831265     PISSN: 10416080     EISSN: 18733425     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abad F.J., Colom R., Rebollo I., Escorial S. Sex differential item functioning in the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for bias. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 36:1459-1470.
2. Arthur W., Day D. Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1994, 54:395-403.
3. Arthur W., Tubre T.C., Paul D.S., Sanchez-Ku M.L. College-sample psychometric and normative data on a short form of the Raven Advanced Matrices Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 1999, 17:354-361.
4. Baker F.B. The basics of item response theory 2001, ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, USA. 2nd ed.
5. Bennett C.K. Bennett mechanical comprehension test 1969, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio.
6. Bentler P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 107:238-246.
7. Bors D.A., Stokes T.L. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Norms for the first-year university students and the development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1998, 58(3):382-398.
8. Brody N. Intelligence 1992, Academic Press, San Diego. 2nd ed.
9. Brouwers S.A., Van der Vijver F.J.R., Van Hemert D.A. Variation in Raven's progressive matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences 2009, 19:330-338.
10. Browne M.W., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-162. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.).
11. Budgell G.R., Raju N.S., Quartetti D.A. Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement 1995, 19:309-321.
12. Chiesi F., Primi C., Morsanyi K. Developmental changes in probabilistic reasoning: The role of cognitive capacity, instructions, thinking styles and relevant knowledge. Thinking and Reasoning 2011, 17:315-350.
13. Çikrikçi-Demirtaşli N. A study of Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test's item measures under Classical and Item Response Model. Paper presented at 31st European Mathematical Psychology Congress, Austria: Graz. 2000.
14. Colom R., Escorial S., Rebollo I. Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices are influenced by sex differences on spatial ability. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 37(6):1289-1293.
15. Colom R., Garcìa-Lopez O. Sex differences in fluid intelligence among high school graduates. Personality and Individual Differences 2002, 32:445-451.
16. Colom R., Juan-Espinosa M., Garcia L.F. The secular increase in test scores is a "Jensen effect". Personality and Individual Differences 2001, 30:553-559.
17. Conway A.R.A., Cowan N., Bunting M.F., Therriault D.J., Minkoff S.R.B. A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence 2002, 30:163-183.
18. Court J.C. Sex differences in performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 1983, 29:54-74.
19. Day E.A., Espejo J., Kowollik V., Boatman P.R., McEntire L.E. Modeling the links between need for cognition and the acquisition of a complex skill. Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 42:201-212.
20. Deary I.J., Strand S., Smith P., Fernandez C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence 2007, 35:13-21.
21. Engle R.W., Tuholski S.W., Laughlin J.E., Conway A.R.A. Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 1999, 128:309-331.
22. Evers A. Testing practices and attitude towards tests and testing: The results of a global survey. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress of Psychology, Istanbul 2011, July.
23. Flora D.B., Curran P.J. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods 2004, 9:466-491.
24. Fry A.F., Hale S. Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence: Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science 1996, 7:237-241.
25. Furnham A., Chamorro-Premuzic T. Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences 2004, 37:943-955.
26. Galli S., Chiesi F., Primi C. Measuring mathematical ability needed for "non- mathematical" majors: The construction of a scale applying IRT and differential item functioning across educational contexts. Learning and Individual Differences 2011, 21:392-402.
27. Gallini J.K. A Rasch analysis of Raven item data. The Journal of Experimental Education 1983, 52(1):27-32.
28. Georgiev N. Item analysis of C, D and E series form Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices with Item Response Theory two-parameter logistic model. Europe's Journal of Psychology 2008, http://www.ejop.org/archives/2008/08/item_analysis_o.html.
29. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, Cambridge University Press, New York. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
30. Haavisto M., Lehto J.E. Fluid/spatial and crystallized intelligence in relation to domain specific working memory: A latent variable approach. Learning and Individual Differences 2004, 15:1-21.
31. Hamel R., Schmittmann V.D. The 20-minute version as a predictor of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2006, 66(6):1039-1046.
32. Jensen A.R. The g factor 1998, Praeger, Westport, CT.
33. Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 49-81. Cambridge University Press, New York. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
34. Kunda M., McGregor K., Goel A. Taking a look (literally!) at Raven's intelligence test: Two visual solution strategies. Proceeding of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2010, 1691-1696.
35. Lord F.M., Wingersky M.S. Comparison of IRT true-score and equipercentile observed-score "equating". Applied Psychological Measurement 1984, 8:453-461.
36. Luo D., Thompson L.A., Detterman D.K. The casual factor underlying the correlation the psychometric g and scholastic performance. Intelligence 2003, 31:67-83.
37. Lynn R., Irwing P. Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence 2004, 32:481-498.
38. Mackintosh N.J., Bennett E.S. What do Raven's Matrices by African and White university students in South Africa. Intelligence 2005, 28:251-265.
39. Morsanyi K., Primi C., Chiesi F., Handley S.J. The effects and side-effects of statistics education. Psychology students' (mis-)conceptions of probability. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2009, 34:210-220.
40. Muñiz J. The role of EFPA in setting standards for tests and test use. Paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo 2009, July.
41. Muñiz J. International strategies to improve tests and testing. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress of Psychology, Istanbul 2011, July.
42. Muthén B.O., duToit S.H.C., Spisic D. Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychometrika 1997, 75.
43. Muthén L.K., Muthén B.O. Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. User's guide 2004, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles. 3rd ed.
44. Orlando, M. (1997). Item fit in the context of item response theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58/04-B, 2175.
45. Pind J., Gunnarsdottir E.K., Johannesson H.S. Raven's standard progressive matrices: New school age norms and a study of the test's validity. Personality and Individual Differences 2003, 34:375-386.
46. Raju N.S. DFITD4: A Fortran program for calculating dichotomous DIF/DTF [computer program] 1998, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
47. Raju N.S. Some notes on the DFIT framework 1999, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
48. Raven J.C. Advanced progressive matrices 1962, Lewis & Co. Ltd., London.
49. Raven J.C., Prieler J., Benesch M. A replication and extension of the item-analysis of the Standard Progressive Matrices Plus, together with a comparison of the results of applying three variants of Item Response Theory. WebPsychEmpiricist 2005, http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
50. Uses and abuses of intelligence: Studies advancing Spearman and Raven's quest for non-arbitrary metrics 2008, Royal Fireworks Press, Unionville, New York. J.C. Raven, J. Raven (Eds.).
51. Raven J., Raven J.C., Court J.H. Raven manual section 1: General overview 1993, Oxford Psychologists Press, Oxford.
52. Raven J., Raven J.C., Court J.H. Raven manual section 4: Advanced Progressive Matrices 1998, Oxford Psychologists Press, Oxford.
53. Saccuzzo D.P., Johnson N.F. Traditional psychometric tests and proportionate representations: An intervention and program evaluation study. Psychological Assessment 1995, 7:181-194.
54. Smith G.T., McCarthy D.M., Anderson K.G. On the sins of short form development. Psychological Assessment 2000, 12(1):102-111.
55. Spearman C. The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement 1927, Macmillan, New York.
56. Stanovich K.E., West R.F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2000, 23:645-665.
57. Stone C.A., Zhang B. Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement 2003, 40(4):331-352.
58. Thissen D. MULTILOG user's guide 1991, SSI, Chicago.
59. Thissen D. Computer software Retrieved from. http://www.unc.edu/~dthissen/dl.html.
60. Thissen D., Pommerich M., Billeaud K., Williams V. Item response theory scores on tests including polytomous items with ordered responses. Applied Psychological Measurement 1995, 19:39-49.
61. Thissen D., Steinberg L., Wainer H. Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. Test validity 1988, 149-169. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. H. Wainer, H.I. Braun (Eds.).
62. van der Ven A.H.G.S., Ellis J.L. A Rasch analysis of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Personality and Individual Differences 2000, 29:45-64.
63. Vigneau F., Bors D.A. Items in context: Assessing the dimensionality of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2005, 65(1):109-123.
64. Waltz J.A., Knowlton B.J., Holyoak K.J., Boone K.B., Mishkin F.S., de Menezes Santos M., et al. A system for relational reasoning in human prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science 1999, 10:119-125.
65. Wechsler D. Scala d'Intelligenza Wechsler per Adulti - Riveduta. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised 1997, Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze.
66. Yuan K., Steedle J., Shavelson R., Alonzo A., Oppezzo M. Working memory, fluid intelligence, and science learning. Educational Research Review 2006, 1:83-98.