Testing the difficulty theory of the SON-R 512 -17, a non-verbal test of intelligence

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 248-265

  Geerlings, Hanneke ^a   Laros, Jacob A ^b   Tellegen, Peter J ^c   Glas, Cees A W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRASILIA   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE TEST; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMETRY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BAYES THEOREM; CHILD; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE TESTS; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 84897622135     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: 20448317     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bmsp.12017     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Albert, J. H. (1992). Bayesian estimation of normal ogive item response curves using Gibbs sampling. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 251-269. doi:10.3102/10769986017003251
2. Andersen, E. B. (1972). The numerical solution of a set of conditional estimation equations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 34, 42-54.
3. Baker, F. B. (1993). Sensitivity of the linear logistic test model to misspecification of the weight matrix. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 201-210. doi:10.1177/014662169301700301
4. Bradlow, E. T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153-168. doi:10.1007/BF02294533
5. Casella, G., & George, E. I. (1992). Explaining the Gibbs sampler. The American Statistician, 46, 167-174. doi:10.1080/00031305.1992.10475878
6. De Boeck, P. (2008). Random item IRT models. Psychometrika, 73, 533-559. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9092-x
7. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer.
8. Ferguson, R. W. (2000). Modeling orientation effects in symmetry detection: the role of visual structure. In L. R. Gleitman & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 125-130). Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(73)90003-6
10. Fox, J.-P. (2010). Bayesian item response modeling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer.
11. Freund, P. A., Hofer, S., & Holling, H. (2008). Explaining and controlling for the psychometric properties of computer-generated figural matrix items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 195-210. doi:10.1177/0146621607306972
12. Geerlings, H. (2012). Psychometric methods for automated test design. Doctoral dissertation, Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente. doi:10.3990/1.9789036533300
13. Geerlings, H., Glas, C. A. W., & van der Linden, W. J. (2011). Modeling rule-based item generation. Psychometrika, 76, 337-359. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9204-x
14. Geerlings, H., van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2013). Optimal test design with rule-based item generation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 140-161. doi:10.1177/0146621612468313
15. Gelman, A., Meng, X.-L., & Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica, 6, 733-807.
16. Gelman, A., Van Mechelen, I., Verbeke, G., Heitjan, D. F., & Meulders, M. (2005). Multiple imputation for model checking: Completed-data plots with missing and latent data. Biometrics, 61, 74-85. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2005.031010.x
17. Geweke, J. (1992). Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid & A. F. M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian statistics 4: Proceedings of the fourth Valencia international meeting (pp. 169-193). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18. Gilbride, T. J., & Lenk, P. J. (2010). Posterior predictive model checking: An application to multivariate normal heterogeneity. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 896-909. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.896
19. Gorin, J. S. (2005). Manipulating processing difficulty of reading comprehension questions: The feasibility of verbal item generation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 351-373. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00020.x
20. Gorin, J. S., & Embretson, S. E. (2006). Item difficulty modeling of paragraph comprehension items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 394-411. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00020.x
21. Green, K. E., & Smith, R. M. (1987). A comparison of two methods of decomposing item difficulties. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12, 369-381. doi:10.3102/10769986012004369
22. Haley, D. C. (1952). Estimation of the dosage mortality relationship when the dose is subject to error (Technical Report No. 15). Palo Alto, CA: Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory, Stanford University.
23. Heidelberger, P., & Welch, P. D. (1983). Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial transient. Operations Research, 31, 1109-1144. doi:10.1287/opre.31.6.1109
24. Holling, H., Bertling, J. P., & Zeuch, N. (2009). Automatic item generation of probability word problems. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 71-76. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.004
25. Holling, H., Blank, H., Kuchenbäcker, K., & Kuhn, J.-T. (2008). Rule-based item design of statistical word problems: A review and first implementation. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 363-378.
26. Hornke, L. F., & Habon, M. W. (1986). Rule-based item bank construction and evaluation within the linear logistic framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 369-380. doi:10.1177/014662168601000405
27. Janssen, R., Schepers, J., & Peres, D. (2004). Models with item and item group predictors. In P. De Boeck & M. Wilson (Eds.), Explanatory item response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 189-212). New York: Springer.
28. Kohs, S. C. (1923). Intelligence measurement: A psychological and statistical study based upon the block-design tests. New York: MacMillan.
29. Kubinger, K. D. (2008). On the revival of the Rasch model-based LLTM: From constructing tests using item generating rules to measuring item administration effects. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 311-327.
30. Laros, J. A., & Tellegen, P. J. (1991). Construction and validation of the SON-R 5.5-17, the Snijders-Oomen non-verbal intelligence test. Groningen, the Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
31. Miller, J. C., & Skillman, G. D. (2008). Relationship of stimulus and examinee variables to performance on analogous visual and tactile block construction tasks. Applied Neuropsychology, 15, 140-149. doi:10.1080/09084280802160901
32. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581-592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581
33. Sinharay, S., Johnson, M. S., & Stern, H. S. (2006). Posterior predictive assessment of item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 298-321. doi:10.1177/0146621605285517
34. Sonnleitner, P. (2008). Using the LLTM to evaluate an item-generating system for reading comprehension. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 345-362.
35. Tellegen, P. J., & Laros, J. A. (1993). The construction and validation of a nonverbal test of intelligence: The revision of the Snijders-Oomen tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 147-157.
36. Verhelst, N. D., & Glas, C. A. W. (1995). The one parameter logistic model. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 215-238). New York: Springer.
37. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348-368. doi:10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664