Item Characteristic Curve Asymmetry: A Better Way to Accommodate Slips and Guesses Than a Four-Parameter Model?

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Xiangyi Liao, D. Bolt
{"title":"Item Characteristic Curve Asymmetry: A Better Way to Accommodate Slips and Guesses Than a Four-Parameter Model?","authors":"Xiangyi Liao, D. Bolt","doi":"10.3102/10769986211003283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Four-parameter models have received increasing psychometric attention in recent years, as a reduced upper asymptote for item characteristic curves can be appealing for measurement applications such as adaptive testing and person-fit assessment. However, applications can be challenging due to the large number of parameters in the model. In this article, we demonstrate in the context of mathematics assessments how the slip and guess parameters of a four-parameter model may often be empirically related. This observation also has a psychological explanation to the extent that both asymptote parameters may be manifestations of a single item complexity characteristic. The relationship between lower and upper asymptotes motivates the consideration of an asymmetric item response theory model as a three-parameter alternative to the four-parameter model. Using actual response data from mathematics multiple-choice tests, we demonstrate the empirical superiority of a three-parameter asymmetric model in several standardized tests of mathematics. To the extent that a model of asymmetry ultimately portrays slips and guesses not as purely random but rather as proficiency-related phenomena, we argue that the asymmetric approach may also have greater psychological plausibility.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"46 1","pages":"753 - 775"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986211003283","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Four-parameter models have received increasing psychometric attention in recent years, as a reduced upper asymptote for item characteristic curves can be appealing for measurement applications such as adaptive testing and person-fit assessment. However, applications can be challenging due to the large number of parameters in the model. In this article, we demonstrate in the context of mathematics assessments how the slip and guess parameters of a four-parameter model may often be empirically related. This observation also has a psychological explanation to the extent that both asymptote parameters may be manifestations of a single item complexity characteristic. The relationship between lower and upper asymptotes motivates the consideration of an asymmetric item response theory model as a three-parameter alternative to the four-parameter model. Using actual response data from mathematics multiple-choice tests, we demonstrate the empirical superiority of a three-parameter asymmetric model in several standardized tests of mathematics. To the extent that a model of asymmetry ultimately portrays slips and guesses not as purely random but rather as proficiency-related phenomena, we argue that the asymmetric approach may also have greater psychological plausibility.
项目特征曲线不对称:比四参数模型更好地适应滑移和猜测?
近年来,四参数模型越来越受到心理测量学的关注,因为项目特征曲线的上渐近线减少可以吸引测量应用,如自适应测试和人适合评估。然而,由于模型中有大量参数,应用程序可能具有挑战性。在本文中,我们在数学评估的背景下证明了四参数模型的滑移和猜测参数如何经常与经验相关。这一观察结果也有心理学上的解释,在某种程度上,两个渐近线参数可能是单个项目复杂性特征的表现。上下渐近线之间的关系激发了不对称项目反应理论模型作为四参数模型的三参数替代方案的考虑。利用数学多项选择题的实际回答数据,我们证明了三参数不对称模型在若干数学标准化测试中的经验优势。在某种程度上,不对称模型最终将失误和猜测描述为不是纯粹随机的,而是与熟练程度相关的现象,我们认为不对称方法也可能具有更大的心理学合理性。
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
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
×
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