An Investigation of the Nature and Consequence of the Relationship between IRT Difficulty and Discrimination

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sandra M. Sweeney, Sandip Sinharay, Matthew S. Johnson, Eric W. Steinhauer
{"title":"An Investigation of the Nature and Consequence of the Relationship between IRT Difficulty and Discrimination","authors":"Sandra M. Sweeney,&nbsp;Sandip Sinharay,&nbsp;Matthew S. Johnson,&nbsp;Eric W. Steinhauer","doi":"10.1111/emip.12522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The focus of this paper is on the empirical relationship between item difficulty and item discrimination. Two studies—an empirical investigation and a simulation study—were conducted to examine the association between item difficulty and item discrimination under classical test theory and item response theory (IRT), and the effects of the association on various quantities of interest. Results from the empirical investigation show that item difficulty and item discrimination are negatively correlated under classical test theory, mostly negatively correlated under the two-parameter logistic model, and mostly positively correlated under the three-parameter logistic model; the magnitude of the correlation varied over the different data sets. Results from the simulation study reveal that a failure to incorporate the correlation between item difficulty and item discrimination in IRT simulations may provide the investigator with inaccurate values of important quantities of interest, and may lead to incorrect operational decisions. Implications to practice and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12522","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The focus of this paper is on the empirical relationship between item difficulty and item discrimination. Two studies—an empirical investigation and a simulation study—were conducted to examine the association between item difficulty and item discrimination under classical test theory and item response theory (IRT), and the effects of the association on various quantities of interest. Results from the empirical investigation show that item difficulty and item discrimination are negatively correlated under classical test theory, mostly negatively correlated under the two-parameter logistic model, and mostly positively correlated under the three-parameter logistic model; the magnitude of the correlation varied over the different data sets. Results from the simulation study reveal that a failure to incorporate the correlation between item difficulty and item discrimination in IRT simulations may provide the investigator with inaccurate values of important quantities of interest, and may lead to incorrect operational decisions. Implications to practice and future directions are discussed.

IRT难度与歧视关系的性质及后果研究
本文的研究重点是题目难度与题目辨别力之间的实证关系。通过实证研究和模拟研究,探讨了经典测试理论和项目反应理论(IRT)下项目难度与项目歧视之间的关系,以及这种关系对不同兴趣量的影响。实证研究结果表明:项目难度与项目辨别力在经典测试理论下呈负相关,在双参数逻辑模型下呈负相关,在三参数逻辑模型下呈正相关;相关性的大小在不同的数据集上有所不同。模拟研究的结果表明,在IRT模拟中未能纳入项目难度和项目辨别之间的相关性可能会为研究者提供不准确的重要感兴趣量值,并可能导致错误的操作决策。讨论了对实践的启示和未来的发展方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信