Abstract
One of the common uses of MIRT is the analysis of the structure of the item response data that results from the administration of a set of test items to a sample of examinees. This type of analysis can be done in either an exploratory or confirmatory way. The exploratory analysis of item response data is used when either there is no clear hypothesis for the structure of the item response data, or when an unconstrained solution is seen as a strong test of the hypothesized structure. Confirmatory analyses require a clear hypothesis for the structure of the item response data. That is, there must be hypotheses about the number of coordinate dimensions needed to model the data and the relationship of the item characteristic surface to the coordinate axes. The types of confirmatory analyses that are typically done specify the relationship of the direction best measured by a test item (the direction of maximum discrimination) with the coordinate axes. It is also possible to have hypotheses about the difficulty of test items, but such hypotheses are seldom checked with the MIRT models. The difficulty parameters are typically left as parameters to be estimated without constraints.
In many cases, what is labeled as an exploratory analysis also has a confirmatory analysis component because the number of coordinate dimensions is selected prior to estimating the item and person-parameters. The resulting measures of fit of the model to the data are a test of a hypothesis about the number of dimensions. Because the number of coordinate dimensions is a critical component of both exploratory and confirmatory analyses, this issue will be addressed first. After consideration of the number-of-dimensions problem, procedures are described for determining the structure of item response data using exploratory and confirmatory procedures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Chap. 4, the curves that are labeled orbits here were called equiprobable contours.
References
Apostle TM (1957) Mathematical analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Bai J, Ng S (2002) Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica 70:191–221
Haberman SJ (1977) Log-linear models and frequency tables with small expected cell counts. Annals of Statistics 5:1148–1169
Harman HH (1976) Modern factor analysis (3rd edition revised). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Holzinger KJ, Harman HH (1941) Factor analysis: A synthesis of factorial methods. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Horn JL (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 32:179–185
Jang EE, Roussos L (2007) An investigation into the dimensionality of TOEFL using conditional covariance-based nonparametric approach. Journal of Educational Measurement 44:1–21
Kim HR (1994) New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL
Kim J-P (2001) Proximity measures and cluster analyses in multidimensional item response theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P (2007) Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: an easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 12:1–11
Miller TR, Hirsch TM (1992) Cluster analysis of angular data in applications of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Measurement in Education 5:193–211
Mroch AA, Bolt DM (2006) A simulation comparison of parametric and nonparametric dimensionality detection procedures. Applied Measurement in Education 19:67–91
Reckase MD, Ackerman TA, Carlson JE (1988) Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. Journal of Educational Measurement 25:193–204
Reckase MD, Davey TC, Ackerman TA (1989) Similarity of the multidimensional space defined by parallel forms of a mathematics test. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco
Reckase MD, Stout W (1995) Conditions under which items that assess multiple abilities will be fit by unidimensional IRT models. Paper presented at the European meeting of the Psychometric Society, Leiden, The Netherlands
Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL (2000) Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment 12:287–297
Roussos LA, Ozbek OY (2006) Formulation of the DETECT population parameter and evaluation of DETECT estimation bias. Journal of Educational Measurement 43:215–243
Roussos LA, Stout WF, Marden JL (1998) Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement 35:1–30
Schilling S, Bock RD (2005) High-dimensional maximum marginal likelihood item factor analysis by adaptive quadrature. Psychometrika 70:533–555
Sokal RR, Michener CD (1958) A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38:1409–1438
Stout W (1987) A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika 52:589–617
Stout W, Douglas B, Junker B, Roussos L (1999) DIMTEST [Computer software]. The William Stout Institute for Measurement, Champaign, IL
Tate R (2003) A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Applied Psychological Measurement 27:159–203
Thurstone LL (1947) Multiple-factor analysis: A development and expansion of The Vectors of Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Wang M (1985) Fitting a unidimensional model to multidimensional item response data: The effect of latent space misspecification on the application of IRT (Research Report MW: 6-24-85). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Zhang JM, Stout W (1999a) Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika 64:129–152
Zhang JM, Stout W (1999b) The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika 64:213–249
Zimowski MF, Muraki E, Mislevy RJ, Bock RD (2003) BILOG-MG for Windows. Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reckase, M.D. (2009). Analyzing the Structure of Test Data. In: Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89976-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89976-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-89975-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-89976-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)