{"title":"基于线性Logistic检验模型的q -矩阵优化。","authors":"Lin Ma, Kelly E Green","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explored optimization of item-attribute matrices with the linear logistic test model (Fischer, 1973), with optimal models explaining more variance in item difficulty due to identified item attributes. Data were 8th-grade mathematics test item responses of two TIMSS 2007 booklets. The study investigated three categories of attributes (content, cognitive process, and comprehensive cognitive process) at two grain levels (larger, smaller) and also compared results with random attribute matrices. The proposed attributes accounted for most of the variance in item difficulty for two assessment booklets (81% and 65%). The variance explained by the content attributes was very small (13% to 31%), less than variance explained by the comprehensive cognitive process attributes which explained much more variance than the content and cognitive process attributes. The variances explained by the grain level were similar to each other. However, the attributes did not predict the item difficulties of two assessment booklets equally.</p>","PeriodicalId":73608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied measurement","volume":"18 3","pages":"247-267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Q-Matrix Optimization Based on the Linear Logistic Test Model.\",\"authors\":\"Lin Ma, Kelly E Green\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study explored optimization of item-attribute matrices with the linear logistic test model (Fischer, 1973), with optimal models explaining more variance in item difficulty due to identified item attributes. Data were 8th-grade mathematics test item responses of two TIMSS 2007 booklets. The study investigated three categories of attributes (content, cognitive process, and comprehensive cognitive process) at two grain levels (larger, smaller) and also compared results with random attribute matrices. The proposed attributes accounted for most of the variance in item difficulty for two assessment booklets (81% and 65%). The variance explained by the content attributes was very small (13% to 31%), less than variance explained by the comprehensive cognitive process attributes which explained much more variance than the content and cognitive process attributes. The variances explained by the grain level were similar to each other. However, the attributes did not predict the item difficulties of two assessment booklets equally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied measurement\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"247-267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Q-Matrix Optimization Based on the Linear Logistic Test Model.
This study explored optimization of item-attribute matrices with the linear logistic test model (Fischer, 1973), with optimal models explaining more variance in item difficulty due to identified item attributes. Data were 8th-grade mathematics test item responses of two TIMSS 2007 booklets. The study investigated three categories of attributes (content, cognitive process, and comprehensive cognitive process) at two grain levels (larger, smaller) and also compared results with random attribute matrices. The proposed attributes accounted for most of the variance in item difficulty for two assessment booklets (81% and 65%). The variance explained by the content attributes was very small (13% to 31%), less than variance explained by the comprehensive cognitive process attributes which explained much more variance than the content and cognitive process attributes. The variances explained by the grain level were similar to each other. However, the attributes did not predict the item difficulties of two assessment booklets equally.