A Comparison of the Relative Performance of Four IRT Models on Equating Passage-Based Tests

被引:4
|
作者
Kim, Kyung Yong [1 ]
Lim, Euijin [2 ]
Lee, Won-Chan [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ North Carolina Greensboro, Educ Res Methodol, Greensboro, NC 27412 USA
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, TEPS Ctr, Language Educ Inst, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Univ Iowa, CASMA, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
equating; item response theory; bifactor model; testlet response theory model;
D O I
10.1080/15305058.2018.1530239
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:248 / 269
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [32] Performance of Aging Timber Bridges based on Field Tests and Deterioration Models
    Srikanth, Ishwarya
    Arockiasamy, Madasamy
    Nagarajan, Sudhagar
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2022, 2676 (10) : 315 - 327
  • [33] Tests for relative performance evaluation based on assumptions derived from proxy statement disclosures
    Bannister J.W.
    Newman H.A.
    Weintrop J.
    Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2011, 37 (2) : 127 - 148
  • [34] Comparison of the performance of four Eulerian network flow models for strategic air traffic management
    Sun, Dengfeng
    Strub, Issam S.
    Bayen, Alexandre M.
    NETWORKS AND HETEROGENEOUS MEDIA, 2007, 2 (04) : 569 - 595
  • [35] A COMPARISON OF 2 MODELS OF PERFORMANCE IN OBJECTIVE TESTS - FINITE STATES VERSUS CONTINUOUS DISTRIBUTIONS
    GARCIAPEREZ, MA
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 43 : 73 - 91
  • [36] Comparison of Uni- and Multidimensional Models Applied in Testlet-Based Tests
    Hernandez-Camacho, Alejandro
    Olea, Julio
    Abad, Francisco J.
    METHODOLOGY-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH METHODS FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2017, 13 (04) : 135 - 143
  • [37] Performance evaluation of four surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) in comparison to the in vivo gold standard test
    Pieri, Massimo
    Infantino, Maria
    Manfredi, Mariangela
    Nuccetelli, Marzia
    Grossi, Valentina
    Lari, Barbara
    Tomassetti, Flaminia
    Sarubbi, Serena
    Russo, Edda
    Amedei, Amedeo
    Benucci, Maurizio
    Casprini, Patrizia
    Stacchini, Lorenzo
    Castilletti, Concetta
    Bernardini, Sergio
    FRONTIERS IN BIOSCIENCE-LANDMARK, 2022, 27 (02):
  • [38] On the Performance of Likelihood-Based Difference Tests in Nonlinear Structural Equation Models
    Gerhard, Carla
    Klein, Andreas G.
    Schermelleh-Engel, Karin
    Moosbrugger, Helfried
    Gaede, Jana
    Brandt, Holger
    STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL, 2015, 22 (02) : 276 - 287
  • [39] Comparison of four different two-equation models of turbulence in predicting film cooling performance
    Hassan, Jawad S.
    Yavuzkurt, Savas
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME TURBO EXPO 2006, VOL 3, PTS A AND B: HEAT TRANSFER: GENERAL INTEREST, 2006, : 701 - 710
  • [40] Seasonal Performance Comparison of Four Electrical Models of Monocrystalline PV Module Operating in a Harsh Environment
    Aoun, Nouar
    Bouchouicha, Kada
    Bailek, Nadjem
    IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, 2019, 9 (04): : 1057 - 1063