Abstract
Three classes of polytomous IRT models are distinguished. These classes are the adjacent category models, the cumulative probability models, and the continuation ratio models. So far, the latter class has received relatively little attention. The class of continuation ratio models includes logistic models, such as the sequential model (Tutz, 1990), and nonlogistic models, such as the acceleration model (Samejima, 1995) and the nonparametric sequential model (Hemker, 1996). Four measurement properties are discussed. These are monotone likelihood ratio of the total score, stochastic ordering of the latent trait by the total score, stochastic ordering of the total score by the latent trait, and invariant item ordering. These properties have been investigated previously for the adjacent category models and the cumulative probability models, and for the continuation ratio models this is done here. It is shown that stochastic ordering of the total score by the latent trait is implied by all continuation ratio models, while monotone likelihood ratio of the total score and stochastic ordering on the latent trait by the total score are not implied by any of the continuation ratio models. Only the sequential rating scale model implies the property of invariant item ordering. Also, we present a Venn-diagram showing the relationships between all known polytomous IRT models from all three classes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agresti, A. (1990).Categorical data analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
Akkermans, L.M.W. (1998).Studies on statistical models for polytomously scored test items. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P.K. (1998). Profiling the difference in students' knowledge, interest, and strategic processing.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 435–447.
Andersen, E.B. (1977). Sufficient statistics and latent trait models.Psychometrika, 42, 69–81.
Andersen, E.B. (1997). The rating scale model. In W.J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.),Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 67–84). New York, NY: Springer.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories.Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.
Andrich, D. (1995). Distinctive and incompatible properties of two common classes of IRT models for graded responses.Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 101–119.
Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P. J. D., Zaal, J.N., & Resing, W.C.M. (1985).Revisie Amsterdamse Kinder-Intelligentie Test (RAKIT) [Revision of the Amsterdam Child Intelligence Test]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Chang, H., & Mazzeo, J. (1994). The unique correspondence of the item category response functions in polytomously scored item response models.Psychometrika, 59, 391–404.
CITO (1998).Nederlands als tweede taal (NT2) profiel toets [Dutch as a foreign language profile test]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Author.
Cooke, D.J., Michie, C., Hart, S.D., & Hare, R.D. (1999). Evaluating the screening version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCI, Sv)—An item response theory analysis.Psychological Assessment, 11, 3–13.
De Vries, H.H. (1988).Het Partial Credit Model en het Sequentiële Rasch Model met stochastisch design [The partial credit model and the sequential Rasch model with stochastic design]. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Glas, C.A.W. (1989).Contributions to estimating and testing Rasch models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Grayson, D.A. (1988). Two-group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio.Psychometrika, 53, 383–392.
Gumpel, T., Wilson, M., & Shalev, R. (1998). An item response theory analysis of the Conner's Teachers Rating-Scale.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 525–532.
Hemker, B.T. (1996).Unidimensional IRT models for polytomous items, with results for Mokken scale analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Hemker, B.T. (2001). Reversibility revisited and other comparisons of three types of polytomous IRT models. In A. Boomsma, M.A.J. van Duijn, & T.A.B. Snijders (Eds.),Essays on item response theory (pp. 277–296). New York, NY: Springer.
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W., & Junker, B.W. (1996). Polytomous IRT models and monotone likelihood ratio of the total score.Psychometrika, 61, 679–693.
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W., & Junker, B.W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models.Psychometrika, 62, 331–347.
Huynh, H. (1994). A new proof for monotone likelihood ratio for the sum of independent Bernoulli random variables.Psychometrika, 59, 77–79.
Junker, B.W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood-based ability estimation for polytomous items.Psychometrika, 56, 255–278.
Junker, B.W. (1993). Conditional association, essential independence and monotone unidimensional item response models.The Annals of Statistics, 21, 1359–1378.
Kelderman, H., & Rijkes, C.P.M. (1994). Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scored items.Psychometrika, 59, 437–450.
Lehmann, E.L. (1959).Testing statistical hypotheses. New York, NY: Wiley.
Lehmann, E. L. (1986).Testing statistical hypotheses (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring.Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.
Masters, G. N. (1988). Measurement models for ordered response categories. In R. Langeheine & J. Rost (Eds.),Latent trait and latent class models (pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Plenum press.
Masters, G.N., & Wright, B.D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W.J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.),Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101–121). New York, NY: Springer.
Maurer, T.J., Raju, N.S., & Collins, W.C. (1998). Peer and subordinate performance-appraisal measurement equivalence.Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 693–702.
Mellenbergh, G.J. (1995). Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses.Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 91–100.
Mokken, R.J., & Lewis, C. (1982). A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses.Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 417–430.
Molenaar, I.W. (1983).Item steps (Heymans Bulletin 83-630-EX). Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen, Department of Statistics and Measurement Theory.
Muraki, E. (1990). Fitting a polytomous item response model to Likert-type data.Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 59–71.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm.Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176.
Rasch, G. (1960).Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research.
Rosenbaum, P.R. (1985). Comparing distributions of item responses for two groups.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 206–215.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores.Psychometrika Monograph Supplement No. 17.
Samejima, F. (1972). A general model for free-response data.Psychometrika Monograph Supplement No. 18.
Samejima, F. (1995). Acceleration model in the heterogeneous case of the general graded response model.Psychometrika, 60, 549–572.
Samejima, F. (1996, April).Polychotomous responses and the test score. Paper presented at National Council on Measurement in Education Meeting, New York.
Samejima, F. (1997, March).An expansion of the logistic positive exponent family of models to a family of graded response models. Paper presented at National Council on Measurement in Education Meeting, Chigago.
Scheiblechner, H. (1995). Isotonic ordinal probabilistic models (ISOP).Psychometrika, 60, 281–304.
Sijtsma, K., & Hemker, B.T. (1998). Nonparametric polytomous IRT models for invariant item ordering, with results for parametric models.Psychometrika, 63, 183–200.
Sijtsma, K., & Hemker, B.T. (2000). A taxonomy for ordering persons and items using simple sum scores.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 391–415.
Sijtsma, K., & Junker, B.W. (1996). A survey of theory and methods of invariant item ordering.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 79–105.
Sijtsma, K., & van der Ark, L.A. (2001). Progress in NIRT analysis of polytomous item scores: Dilemmas and practical solutions. In A. Boomsma, M.A.J. van Duijn, & T.A.B. Snijders (Eds.),Essays on item response theory (pp. 297–318). New York, NY: Springer.
Sijtsma, K., & Verweij, A.C. (1999). Knowledge of solution strategies and IRT modeling of items for transitive reasoning.Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 55–68.
Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models.Psychometrika, 51, 567–577.
Tutz, G. (1990). Sequential item response models with an ordered response.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 39–55.
Tutz, G. (1997). Sequential models for ordered responses. In W.J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.),Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 139–152). New York, NY: Springer.
van der Ark, L.A. (2000).Practical consequences of stochastic ordering of the latent trait under various polytomous IRT models. Manuscript submitted for publication.
van Engelenburg, G. (1997).On psychometric models for polytomous items with ordered categories within the framework of item response theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
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 (pp. 123–138). New York, NY: Springer.
Verhelst, N.D., Glas, C.A.W., & Verstralen, H.H.F.M. (1995).OPLM: One Parameter Logistic Model. Computer program and manual. Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hemker, B.T., Andries van der Ark, L. & Sijtsma, K. On measurement properties of continuation ratio models. Psychometrika 66, 487–506 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296191
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296191