{"title":"基于测试集的测试中单模型与多维模型的比较","authors":"Alejandro Hernández‐Camacho, J. Olea, F. J. Abad","doi":"10.1027/1614-2241/a000137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The bifactor model (BM) and the testlet response model (TRM) are the most common multidimensional models applied to testlet-based tests. The common procedure is to estimate these models using different estimation methods (see, e.g., DeMars, 2006). A possible consequence of this is that previous findings about the implications of fitting a wrong model to the data may be confounded with the estimation procedures they employed. With this in mind, the present study uses the same method (maximum marginal likelihood [MML] using dimensional reduction) to compare uni- and multidimensional strategies to testlet-based tests, and assess the performance of various relative fit indices. Data were simulated under three different models, namely BM, TRM, and the unidimensional model. Recovery of item parameters, reliability estimates, and selection rates of the relative fit indices were documented. The results were essentially consistent with those obtained through different methods (DeMars, 2006), indicating that the effect of the estimation method is negligible. Regarding the fit indices, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) showed the best selection rates, whereas Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) tended to select a model which is simpler than the true one. The work concludes with recommendations for practitioners and proposals for future research.","PeriodicalId":18476,"journal":{"name":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","volume":"13 1","pages":"135–143"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Uni- and Multidimensional Models Applied in Testlet-Based Tests\",\"authors\":\"Alejandro Hernández‐Camacho, J. Olea, F. J. Abad\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-2241/a000137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The bifactor model (BM) and the testlet response model (TRM) are the most common multidimensional models applied to testlet-based tests. The common procedure is to estimate these models using different estimation methods (see, e.g., DeMars, 2006). A possible consequence of this is that previous findings about the implications of fitting a wrong model to the data may be confounded with the estimation procedures they employed. With this in mind, the present study uses the same method (maximum marginal likelihood [MML] using dimensional reduction) to compare uni- and multidimensional strategies to testlet-based tests, and assess the performance of various relative fit indices. Data were simulated under three different models, namely BM, TRM, and the unidimensional model. Recovery of item parameters, reliability estimates, and selection rates of the relative fit indices were documented. The results were essentially consistent with those obtained through different methods (DeMars, 2006), indicating that the effect of the estimation method is negligible. Regarding the fit indices, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) showed the best selection rates, whereas Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) tended to select a model which is simpler than the true one. The work concludes with recommendations for practitioners and proposals for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"135–143\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000137\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for The Behavioral and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000137","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MATHEMATICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Uni- and Multidimensional Models Applied in Testlet-Based Tests
The bifactor model (BM) and the testlet response model (TRM) are the most common multidimensional models applied to testlet-based tests. The common procedure is to estimate these models using different estimation methods (see, e.g., DeMars, 2006). A possible consequence of this is that previous findings about the implications of fitting a wrong model to the data may be confounded with the estimation procedures they employed. With this in mind, the present study uses the same method (maximum marginal likelihood [MML] using dimensional reduction) to compare uni- and multidimensional strategies to testlet-based tests, and assess the performance of various relative fit indices. Data were simulated under three different models, namely BM, TRM, and the unidimensional model. Recovery of item parameters, reliability estimates, and selection rates of the relative fit indices were documented. The results were essentially consistent with those obtained through different methods (DeMars, 2006), indicating that the effect of the estimation method is negligible. Regarding the fit indices, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) showed the best selection rates, whereas Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) tended to select a model which is simpler than the true one. The work concludes with recommendations for practitioners and proposals for future research.