Discrimination with unidimensional and multidimensional item response theory models for educational data

References

• Adams, R. J., M. Wilson, and W.-C. Wang. 1997. The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement 21 (1):1–23. doi:10.1177/0146621697211001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, F. B., and S.-H. Kim. 2004. Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, M. P. F., and W.-K. Wong. 2005. Applied optimal designs. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, R. D., R. Gibbons, and E. Muraki. 1988. Full-information item factor analysis. Applied psychological measurement 12 (3):261–80. doi:10.1177/014662168801200305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference – a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Buyske, S. 2005. Optimal designs in educational testing. In Applied optimal designs, eds. M. P. F. Berger and W. K. Wong. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
   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. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, R. A., and S. H. Oppler. 1999. Practical implications of test dimensionality for item response theory calibration of the medical college admission test. MCAT Monograph. Washington, DC: ERIC.
   Google Scholar
• Conway, J. M., and A. I. Huffcutt. 2003. A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 6 (2):147–68. doi:10.1177/1094428103251541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Torre, J., and R. J. Patz. 2005. Making the most of what we have: A practical application of multidimensional item response theory in test scoring. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 30 (3):295–311. doi:10.3102/10769986030003295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drasgow, F., and C. K. Parsons. 1983. Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement 7 (2):189–99. doi:10.1177/014662168300700207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum, and E. J. Strahan. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4 (3):272–99. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.4.3.272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkelman, M., G. Hooker, and Z. Wang. 2010. Prevalence and magnitude of paradoxical results in multidimensional item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 35 (6):744–61. doi:10.3102/1076998610381402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrido, L. E., F. J. Abad, and V. Ponsoda. 2013. A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods 18 (4):454–74. doi:10.1037/a0030005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Guttman, L. 1954. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika 19 (2):149–61. doi:10.1007/BF02289162.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., H. Swaminathan, and H. J. Rogers. 1991. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, D. A. 1986. Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. Journal of Educational Statistics 11 (2):91–115. doi:10.3102/10769986011002091.
   Google Scholar
• Hartig, J., and J. Höhler. 2009. Multidimensional IRT models for the assessment of competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation 35 (2/3):57–63. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.002.
   Google Scholar
• Hayton, J. C., D. G. Allen, and V. Scarpello. 2004. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods 7 (2):191–205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson, R. K., and J. K. Roberts. 2006. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (3):393–416. doi:10.1177/0013164405282485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooker, G. 2010. On separable test, correlated priors, and paradoxical results in multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika 75 (4):694–707. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9181-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooker, G., M. Finkelman, and A. Schwartzman. 2009. Paradoxical results in multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika 74 (3):419–42. doi:10.1007/s11336-009-9111-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30 (2):179–85. doi:10.1007/BF02289447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, P., and M. Spiess. 2012. Generalization of paradoxical results in multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika 77 (1):127–52. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9243-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, P., and M. Spiess. 2018. A new explanation and proof of the paradoxical scoring results in multidimensional item response models. Psychometrika 83 (4):831–46. doi:10.1007/s11336-017-9588-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, H. F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1):141–51. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirisci, L., T.-C. Hsu, and L. Yu. 2001. Robustness of item parameter estimation programs to assumptions of unidimensionality and normality. Applied Psychological Measurement 25 (2):146–62. doi:10.1177/01466210122031975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kose, I. A., and N. C. Demirtasli. 2012. Comparison of unidimensional and multidimensional models based on item response theory in terms of both variables of test length and sample size. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46:135–40. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.082.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S., and R. Terry. 2005. MDIRT-FIT: SAS macros for fitting multidimensional item response. Paper presented at the SUGI 31st Conference, Cary.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y., H. Jiao, and R. W. Lissitz. 2012. Applying multidimensional item response theory models in validating test dimensionality: An example of k–12 large-scale science assessment. Journal of Applied Testing Technology 13 (2):1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Magis, D. 2013. A note on the item information function of the four-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement 37 (4):304–15. doi:10.1177/0146621613475471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magis, D., and G. Raîche. 2012. Random generation of response patterns under computerized adaptive testing with the r package catr. Journal of Statistical Software 48 (8):1–31. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i08.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peres-Neto, P. R., D. A. Jackson, and K. M. Somers. 2005. How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 49 (4):974–97. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2004.06.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 1979. Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics 4 (3):207–30. doi:10.3102/10769986004003207.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 1997. High dimensional analysis of the contents of an achievement test battery: Are 50 dimensions too many? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology, Scottsdale, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 2007. Multidimensional item response theory. In: Handbook of statistics 26: Psychometrics, ed. C. R. Rao and S. Sinharay, 607–42. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 2009. Multidimensional item response theory. Springer, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M., and X. Luo. 2015. A paradox by another name is good estimation. In Quantitative psychology research. Springer proceedings in mathematics & statistics, R. Millsap, D. Bolt, L. van der Ark, and W. C. Wang, vol. 89, 465–86. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D., and R. L. McKinley. 1991. The discriminating power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement 15 (4):361–73. doi:10.1177/014662169101500407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 1985. Models for multidimensional tests and hierarchically structured training materials. Technical report, American Coll Testing Program IOWA city IA test development div.
   Google Scholar
• Rizopoulos, D. 2006. ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software 17 (5):1–25. doi:10.18637/jss.v017.i05.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruscio, J., and B. Roche. 2012. Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure. Psychological Assessment 24 (2):282–92. doi:10.1037/a0025697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. 1969. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Psychometrika 34 (4):100. doi:10.1007/BF03372160.
   Google Scholar
• Sheng, Y., and C. K. Wikle. 2007. Comparing multiunidimensional and unidimensional item response theory models. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67 (6):899–919. doi:10.1177/0013164406296977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer, S. G. 2004. The strength of multidimensional item response theory in exploring construct space that is multidimensional and correlated. Ph. D. thesis., Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University-Provo.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, W. J. 2012. On compensation in multidimensional response modeling. Psychometrika 77 (1):21–30. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9237-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rijn, P. W., and F. Rijmen. 2012. A note on explaining away and paradoxical results in multidimensional item response theory. Technical report, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02295.x.
   Google Scholar
• Velicer, W. F., C. A. Eaton, and J. L. Fava. 2000. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In Problems and solutions in human assessment, 41–71. Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Verma, N., and M. K. Markey. 2014. Item response analysis of Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale. In Engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), 2014 36th annual international conference of the IEEE, 2476–2479. Chicago: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Way, W. D., T. N. Ansley, and R. A. Forsyth. 1988. The comparative effects of compensatory and noncompensatory two-dimensional data on unidimensional IRT estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement 12 (3):239–52. doi:10.1177/014662168801200303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiberg, M. 2012. Can a multidimensional test be evaluated with unidimensional item response theory? Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (4):307–20. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.670416.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, S. 2007. A comparison of unidimensional and multidimensional RASCH models using parameter estimates and fit indices when assumption of unidimensionality is violated. Ph. D. thesis, doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Yen, W. M. 1984. Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement 8 (2):125–45. doi:10.1177/014662168400800201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwick, W. R., and W. F. Velicer. 1986. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin 99 (3):432–42. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.99.3.432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar