An Examination of the Characteristics of Unidimensional IRT Parameter Estimates Derived From Two-Dimensional Data

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to study the nature of the item and ability estimates obtained when the modified three-parameter logistic model is used with two-dimensional data. To examine the effects of two-dimensional data on unidimensional parameter es timates, the relative potency of the two dimensions was systematically varied by changing the correlations between the two ability dimensions. Data sets based on correlations of .0, .3, .6, .9, and .95 were gener ated for each of four combinations of sample size and test length. Also, for each of these four combinations, five unidimensional data sets were simulated for com parison purposes. Relative to the nature of the unidi mensional estimates, it was found that the â value seemed best considered as the average of the true a values. The b value seemed best thought of as an overestimate of the true b ₁ values. The θ value seemed best considered as the average of the true ability pa rameters. Although there was a consistent trend for these relationships to strengthen as the ability dimen sions became more highly correlated, there was al ways a substantial disparity between the magnitudes of these values and of those derived from the unidimen sional data. Sample size and test length had very little effect on these relationships.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brandenburg, D.C. (1972). The use of multiple matrix sampling in approximating an entire empirical norms distribution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , The University of Iowa.

Doody-Bogan, E. , & Yen, W.M. (1983). Detecting multidimensionality and examining its effects on vertical equating with the three-parameter logistic model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Drasgow, F. , & Parsons, C.K. (1983). Application of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement , 7, 189-199.

Hambleton, R.K. , & Murray, L. (1983). Some goodness of fit investigations for item response models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 71-94). British Columbia : Educational Research Institute of British Columbia .

Hambleton, R.K. , Swaminathan, H. , Cook, L. , Eignor, D. , & Gifford, J. (1978). Developments in latent trait theory: Models, technical issues, and applications. Review of Educational Research, 48, 467-510.

Hattie, J. (1981). Decision criteria for determining unidimensionality . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto , Canada.

Hulin, C. , Drasgow, F. , & Parsons, C. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood IL: Dow Jones-Irwin .

Hutten, L.R. (1980). Some empirical evidence for latent trait model selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston .

Johnston, P. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. Newark DE: International Reading Association.

10.

Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Lord, F.M. , & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

12.

Loyd, B.H. , & Hoover, H.D. (1980). Vertical equating using the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 178-193.

13.

Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics , 4, 207-230.

14.

Reckase, M.D. , & McKinley, R.L. (1985). Some latent trait theory in a multidimensional latent space. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 248-280). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory.

15.

Rentz, R.R. , & Rentz, C.C. (1979). Does the Rasch model really work? Measurement in Education, 10, 1-12.

16.

Schmid, J. , & Leiman, J. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions . Psychometrika, 22, 53-61.

17.

Sympson, J.B. (1978). A model for testing with multidimensional items . In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1977 Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference (pp. 82-98). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program.

18.

Traub, R.E. (1983). A priori considerations in choosing an item response model. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 57-70). British Columbia: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.

19.

Wingersky, M.S. , Barton, M.A. , & Lord, F.M. (1982). LOGIST user's guide. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.

20.

Wood, R.L. , Wingersky, M.S. , & Lord, F.M. (1976). LOGIST: A program for estimating ability and item characteristic curve parameters. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.