四种IRT模型在等价段落测试中的相对性能比较

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Kyung Yong Kim, Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee
{"title":"四种IRT模型在等价段落测试中的相对性能比较","authors":"Kyung Yong Kim, Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For passage-based tests, items that belong to a common passage often violate the local independence assumption of unidimensional item response theory (UIRT). In this case, ignoring local item dependence (LID) and estimating item parameters using a UIRT model could be problematic because doing so might result in inaccurate parameter estimates, which, in turn, could impact the results of equating. Under the random groups design, the main purpose of this article was to compare the relative performance of the three-parameter logistic (3PL), graded response (GR), bifactor, and testlet models on equating passage-based tests when various degrees of LID were present due to passage. Simulation results showed that the testlet model produced the most accurate equating results, followed by the bifactor model. The 3PL model worked as well as the bifactor and testlet models when the degree of LID was low but returned less accurate equating results than the two multidimensional models as the degree of LID increased. Among the four models, the polytomous GR model provided the least accurate equating results.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the Relative Performance of Four IRT Models on Equating Passage-Based Tests\",\"authors\":\"Kyung Yong Kim, Euijin Lim, Won‐Chan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For passage-based tests, items that belong to a common passage often violate the local independence assumption of unidimensional item response theory (UIRT). In this case, ignoring local item dependence (LID) and estimating item parameters using a UIRT model could be problematic because doing so might result in inaccurate parameter estimates, which, in turn, could impact the results of equating. Under the random groups design, the main purpose of this article was to compare the relative performance of the three-parameter logistic (3PL), graded response (GR), bifactor, and testlet models on equating passage-based tests when various degrees of LID were present due to passage. Simulation results showed that the testlet model produced the most accurate equating results, followed by the bifactor model. The 3PL model worked as well as the bifactor and testlet models when the degree of LID was low but returned less accurate equating results than the two multidimensional models as the degree of LID increased. Among the four models, the polytomous GR model provided the least accurate equating results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

对于基于篇章的测试,属于共同篇章的项目经常违反一维项目反应理论(UIRT)的局部独立性假设。在这种情况下,忽略局部项目依赖性(LID)和使用UIRT模型估计项目参数可能会有问题,因为这样做可能会导致参数估计不准确,进而影响等式的结果。在随机分组设计下,本文的主要目的是比较三参数逻辑(3PL)、分级反应(GR)、双因子和小测试模型在基于通道的等效测试中的相对性能,当由于通道存在不同程度的LID时。仿真结果表明,testlet模型产生了最准确的等值结果,其次是双因子模型。当LID程度较低时,3PL模型与双因子和小测试模型一样有效,但随着LID程度的增加,返回的等式结果不如两个多维模型准确。在这四个模型中,多面体GR模型提供了最不准确的等式结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of the Relative Performance of Four IRT Models on Equating Passage-Based Tests
For passage-based tests, items that belong to a common passage often violate the local independence assumption of unidimensional item response theory (UIRT). In this case, ignoring local item dependence (LID) and estimating item parameters using a UIRT model could be problematic because doing so might result in inaccurate parameter estimates, which, in turn, could impact the results of equating. Under the random groups design, the main purpose of this article was to compare the relative performance of the three-parameter logistic (3PL), graded response (GR), bifactor, and testlet models on equating passage-based tests when various degrees of LID were present due to passage. Simulation results showed that the testlet model produced the most accurate equating results, followed by the bifactor model. The 3PL model worked as well as the bifactor and testlet models when the degree of LID was low but returned less accurate equating results than the two multidimensional models as the degree of LID increased. Among the four models, the polytomous GR model provided the least accurate equating results.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
×
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