Estimating reliability statistics and measurement error variances using instrumental variables with longitudinal data

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
H. Goldstein, G. Leckie, M. Haynes, P. Tran
{"title":"Estimating reliability statistics and measurement error variances using instrumental variables with longitudinal data","authors":"H. Goldstein, G. Leckie, M. Haynes, P. Tran","doi":"10.1332/175795920x15844303873216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The presence of randomly distributed measurement errors in scale scores such as those used in educational and behavioural assessments implies that careful adjustments are required to statistical model estimation procedures if inferences are required for ‘true’ as opposed\n to ‘observed’ relationships. In many cases this requires the use of external values for ‘reliability’ statistics or ‘measurement error variances’ which may be provided by a test constructor or else inferred or estimated by the data analyst. Popular measures\n are those described as ‘internal consistency’ estimates and sometimes other measures based on data grouping. All such measures, however, make particular assumptions that may be questionable but are often not examined. In this paper we focus on scaled scores derived from aggregating\n a set of indicators, and set out a general methodological framework for exploring different ways of estimating reliability statistics and measurement error variances, critiquing certain approaches and suggesting more satisfactory methods in the presence of longitudinal data. In particular,\n we explore the assumption of local (conditional) item response independence and show how a failure of this assumption can lead to biased estimates in statistical models using scaled scores as explanatory variables. We illustrate our methods using a large longitudinal data set of mathematics\n test scores from Queensland, Australia.","PeriodicalId":45988,"journal":{"name":"Longitudinal and Life Course Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Longitudinal and Life Course Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/175795920x15844303873216","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The presence of randomly distributed measurement errors in scale scores such as those used in educational and behavioural assessments implies that careful adjustments are required to statistical model estimation procedures if inferences are required for ‘true’ as opposed to ‘observed’ relationships. In many cases this requires the use of external values for ‘reliability’ statistics or ‘measurement error variances’ which may be provided by a test constructor or else inferred or estimated by the data analyst. Popular measures are those described as ‘internal consistency’ estimates and sometimes other measures based on data grouping. All such measures, however, make particular assumptions that may be questionable but are often not examined. In this paper we focus on scaled scores derived from aggregating a set of indicators, and set out a general methodological framework for exploring different ways of estimating reliability statistics and measurement error variances, critiquing certain approaches and suggesting more satisfactory methods in the presence of longitudinal data. In particular, we explore the assumption of local (conditional) item response independence and show how a failure of this assumption can lead to biased estimates in statistical models using scaled scores as explanatory variables. We illustrate our methods using a large longitudinal data set of mathematics test scores from Queensland, Australia.
使用具有纵向数据的工具变量估计可靠性统计和测量误差方差
在教育和行为评估中使用的量表分数中存在随机分布的测量误差,这意味着如果需要推断“真实”而不是“观察到”的关系,则需要对统计模型估计程序进行仔细的调整。在许多情况下,这需要使用“可靠性”统计或“测量误差方差”的外部值,这些值可能由测试构造器提供,或者由数据分析人员推断或估计。常用的衡量标准是那些被称为“内部一致性”的估计,有时还有其他基于数据分组的衡量标准。然而,所有这些措施都做出了可能有问题的特定假设,但往往没有加以审查。在本文中,我们将重点放在通过汇总一组指标得出的尺度分数上,并提出了一个通用的方法框架,用于探索估计可靠性统计和测量误差方差的不同方法,批评某些方法,并在纵向数据存在的情况下提出更令人满意的方法。特别是,我们探讨了局部(条件)项目反应独立性的假设,并展示了该假设的失败如何导致使用缩放分数作为解释变量的统计模型中的偏差估计。我们使用来自澳大利亚昆士兰的数学考试成绩的大型纵向数据集来说明我们的方法。
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
2.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
43
×
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