Number of Response Categories and Sample Size Requirements in Polytomous IRT Models

References

• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahry, L. M. (2012). Polytomous item response theory parameter recovery: An investigation of nonnormal distributions and small sample size [Master’s Thesis]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, M., Klößner, S. (2021). PearsonDS: Pearson distribution system. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PearsonDS
   Google Scholar
• Bonanomi, A., Olivari, M. G., Mascheroni, E., Gatti, E., & Confalonieri, E. (2018). Using a multidimensional Rasch analysis to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) among high school students. Testing, Psychometrics. Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25, 3–100. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM25.1.5
   Google Scholar
• Cai, L., Chung, S. W., & Lee, T. (2021). Incremental model fit assessment in the case of categorical data: Tucker–Lewis index for item response theory modeling. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01253-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, L., & Monroe, S. (2013). IRT model fit evaluation from theory to practice: Progress and some unanswered questions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(3), 102–106.
   Google Scholar
• Carle, A. C., Jaffee, D., Vaughan, N. W., & Eder, D. (2009). Psychometric properties of three new national survey of student engagement based engagement scales: An item response theory analysis. Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 775–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9141-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, S., & Svetina Valdivia, D. (2020). Developing a facilitators scale in the context of travel: ReTRIP. Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation, 2(2), 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arrct.2020.100042
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cole, S., Svetina, D., & Whiteneck, G. (2019). Developing a barriers scale in the context of travel: TRIP. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) using item response theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordier, R., Munro, N., Wilkes-Gillan, S., Speyer, R., Parsons, L., & Joosten, A. (2019). Applying Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling to an observational measure of childhood pragmatics: The Pragmatics Observational Measure-2. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dai, S., Vo, T. T., Kehinde, O. J., He, H., Xue, Y., Demir, C., & Wang, X. (2021). Performance of polytomous IRT models with rating scale data: An investigation over sample size, instrument length, and missing data. Frontiers in Education, 6, 721963. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.721963
   Google Scholar
• De Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• De Ayala, R. J., & Sava-Bolesta, M. (1999). Item parameter recovery for the nominal response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466219922031130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMars, C. E. (2003). Sample size and the recovery of nominal response model item parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621603027004003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying Item Response Theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(S1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finch, H., & French, B. F. (2019). A comparison of estimation techniques for IRT models with small samples. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1577243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, B. F., & Vo, T. T. (2020). Differential item functioning of a truancy assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 642–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919863215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, H. W., Chung, H. M., & Ross, C. A. (2020). Demographic and mental health correlates of childhood emotional abuse and neglect in a Hong Kong sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 99, 04288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez, R. (2008). Parent ratings of the ADHD items of the disruptive behavior rating scale: Analyses of their IRT properties based on the generalized partial credit model. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagedoorn, E. I., Paans, W., Jaarsma, T., Keers, J. C., van der Schans, C. P., Luttik, M. L., & Krijnen, W. P. (2018). Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Dutch families importance in nursing care: Nurses’ Attitudes Scale based on the Generalized Partial Credit Model. Journal of Family Nursing, 24(4), 538–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840718810551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardouin, J. B., Blanchin, M., Feddag, M. L., Néel, T. L., Perrot, B., & Sébille, V. (2015). Power and sample size determination for group comparison of patient‐reported outcomes using polytomous Rasch models. Statistics in Medicine, 34(16), 2444–2455. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Q., & Wheadon, C. (2013). The effect of sample size on item parameter estimation for the partial credit model. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education, 1(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJQRE.2013.057692
   Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huggins-Manley, A., & Han, H. (2017). Assessing the sensitivity of weighted least squares model fit indexes to local dependence in item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1247355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwanggyu, L. (2020). irtplay: Unidimensional item response theory modeling. R package version 1.6.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irtplay
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, S., Wang, C., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). Sample size requirements for estimation of item parameters in the multidimensional graded response model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamata, A., & Bauer, D. J. (2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701758406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, T., Cohen, A. S., & Sung, H. J. (2009). Model selection indices for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(7), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621608327800
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehinde, O. J., Dai, S., & French, B. (2022). Item parameter estimation for multidimensional graded response model under complex structure. Frontiers in Education, 7, 947581. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.947581
   Google Scholar
• Kutscher, T., Eid, M., & Crayen, C. (2019). Sample size requirements for applying mixed Polytomous item response models: results of a Monte Carlo simulation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2494. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02494
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lai, K. (2019). A simple analytic confidence interval for CFI given nonnormal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1562351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, Y. (2018). Parameter recovery with marginal maximum likelihood and Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation for the generalized partial credit model. ArXiv:1809.07359 [Stat]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07359
   Google Scholar
• Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2005). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n continge tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009–1020.
   Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2014). Assessing Approximate Fit in Categorical Data Analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(4), 305–328, https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.911075.
   Google Scholar
• Muis, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Edwards, O. V. (2009). Modern psychometrics for assessing achievement goal orientation: A Rasch analysis. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(Pt 3), 547–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. ETS Research Report Series, 1992(1), i–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1992.tb01436.x
   Google Scholar
• Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education : theory and Practice, 15(5), 625–632. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y#citeas
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en
   Google Scholar
• Ong, C. W., Pierce, B. G., Woods, D. W., Twohig, M. P., & Levin, M. E. (2019). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 41(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9694-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, K. M., Maltese, A. V., & Svetina Valdivia, D. (2020). Development and validation of the role identity surveys in engineering (RIS-E) and STEM (RIS-STEM) for elementary students. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00243-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penfield, R. D. (2014). An NCME instructional module on polytomous item response theory models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2016). On the Relationship Between Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory: From One to the Other and Back. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415576958 29795868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2021). On the relationship between classical test theory and item response theory: From one to the other and back. SAGE Open, 11(3), 215824402110401–215824402110338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415576958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 33–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1990.tb00738.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutkowski, L., Svetina, D., & Liaw, Y.-L. (2019). Collapsing categorical variables and measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1547640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, 34(S1), 1–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372160
   Google Scholar
• Savalei, V. (2012). The relationship between root mean square error of approximation and model misspecification in confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(6), 910–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412452564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkness, J., & DeAngelo, L. (2011). Measuring student involvement: A comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in the construction of scales from student surveys. Research in Higher Education, 52(5), 480–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9202-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2020). Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, G., & Artino, A. R. Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uttaro, T., & Lehman, A. (1999). Graded response modeling of the quality of life interview. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(98)00039-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lans, R. M., Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Fernández-García, C.-M., Chun, S., de Jager, T., Irnidayanti, Y., Inda-Caro, M., Lee, O., Coetzee, T., Fadhilah, N., Jeon, M., & Moorer, P. (2021). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n contingency tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ximénez, C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., Shi, D., & Revuelta, J. (2022). Assessing cutoff values of SEM fit indices: Advantages of the unbiased SRMR index and its cutoff criterion based on communality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(3), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.1992596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., Svetina Valdivia, D., & Byon, K. K. (2020). An item response theory analysis of Residents’ perceived positive event impact. Journal of Global Sport Management, 7(4), 615–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2020.1731701
   Google Scholar
• Zumbo, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. W. (1993). Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 34(4), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar