A marginal maximum a posteriori (MMAP) procedure was implemented to estimate item parameters in the generalized graded unfolding model (GGUM). Estimates from the MMAP method were compared with those derived from marginal maximum likelihood (MML) and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedures in a recovery simulation that varied sample size, questionnaire length, and number of item response categories. MMAP item parameter estimates were generally the most accurate and had the smallest standard errors on average. In contrast, the accuracy and variability of MML estimates suffered substantially when the number of item response categories was small and the true item locations were extreme. MMAP estimates were also more computationally efficient than corresponding MCMC estimates. Consequently, the MMAP procedure is recommended for estimation of GGUM item parameters.
Bock, R.D., & Aitkin, M. ( 1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
2.
Cui, W., Roberts, J.S., & Bao, H. ( 2004, April). Data demands for the generalized graded unfolding model. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, California.
3.
De la Torre, J., Stark, S., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2006). Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of item parameters for the generalized graded unfolding model . Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 216-232.
4.
DeMars, C.E., & Erwin, T.D. ( 2003). Revising the scale of intellectual development: Application of an unfolding model. Journal of College Student Development , 44, 168-184.
5.
du Toit, M. ( 2003). IRT from SSI: BILOG-MG, MULTILOG, PARSCALE, TESTFACT . Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
6.
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L.S. ( 1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in the randomized block and split plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69-82.
7.
Johnson, M.S., & Junker, B.W. ( 2003). Using data augmentation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo for estimation of unfolding response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 28, 195-230.
8.
Luo, G. ( 2000). Joint maximum likelihood estimation for the hyperbolic cosine model for single stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 33-49.
Noël, Y. ( 1999). Recovering unimodal latent patterns of change by unfolding analysis: Applications to smoking cessation. Psychological Methods, 4, 173-191.
11.
Roberts, J.S. ( 2008). Modified likelihood-based item fit statistics for the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 407-423.
12.
Roberts, J.S., Donoghue, J.R., & Laughlin, J.E. (2000). A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3-32.
13.
Roberts, J.S., Donoghue, J.R., & Laughlin, J.E. (2002). Characteristics of MML/EAP parameter estimates in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 192-207.
14.
Roberts, J.S., Fang, H., Cui, W., & Wang, Y. ( 2006). GGUM2004: A Windows-based program to estimate parameters in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 64-65.
15.
Roberts, J.S., & Huang, C. ( 2003). GGUMLINK: A computer program to link parameter estimates of the generalized graded unfolding model from item response theory. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation and Computers, 35, 525-549.
16.
Roberts, J.S., & Laughlin, J.E. (1996). A unidimensional item response model for unfolding responses from a graded disagree-agree response scale . Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 231-255.
17.
Roberts, J.S., Laughlin, J.E., & Wedell, D.H. ( 1999). Validity issues in the Likert and Thurstone approaches to attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 59, 211-233.
Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Lunn, D. ( 2007). WinBUGS (Version 1.4.2). [Computer program]. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health.
20.
Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B.A. (2006). Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology , 91, 25-39.
