A program is described for computing different person-fit measures under different parametric item response models for binary items. The indices computed are the standardized log-likelihood index lz, the standardized extended caution index ECI4z, and the chi-square statistic of Trabin and Weiss. These indices can be computed for the Rasch model and the two- and three-parameter logistic models. The program can plot person response curves, which allow the researcher to investigate the kind of nonfitting response behavior that is present in examinees who are detected as inconsistent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birenbaum, M. (1985). Comparing the effectiveness of several IRT based appropriateness measures in detecting unusual response patterns. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 523-534.
2.
Drasgow, F. , Levine, M. V., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with polychotomous item response models and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67-86.
Levine, M. V. , & Rubin, D. B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269-290.
5.
Li, M. F. , & Olejnik, S. (1997). The power of Rasch person-fit statistics in detecting unusual response patterns. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 215-231.
6.
Meijer, R. R. , & Sijtsma, K. (1995). Detection of aberrant item score patterns: A review of recent developments. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 261-272.
7.
Mislevy, R. J. , & Bock, R. D. (1990). Bilog 3 item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software.
8.
Nering, M. L. (1995). The distribution of person fit using true and estimated person parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 121-129.
9.
Nering, M. L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person fit within the computerized adaptative testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 115-127.
10.
Nering, M. L. , & Meijer, R. R. (1998). A comparison of the person response function and the lz person-fit statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 53-69.
11.
Schmitt, N. , Chan, D., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Jennings, D. (1999). Correlates of person-fit and effect of person-fit on test validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 41-53.
12.
Smith, R. M. (1991). IPARM: Item and person analysis with the Rasch model. Chicago: Mesa Press.
13.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1984). Caution indices based on item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 95-110.
14.
Trabin, T. E. , & Weiss, D. J. (1983). The person response curve: Fit of individuals to item characteristic curve models. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptative testing (pp. 83-108). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Zickar, M. J. , & Drasgow, F. (1996). Detecting faking on a personality instrument using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 71-87.
