The capability of DIMTEST in assessing essential unidimensionality of item responses to real tests was investigated. DIMTEST found that some test data fit an essentially unidimensional model and other data did not. Essentially unidimensional test data identified by DIMTEST then were combined to form two-dimensional test data. The power of Stout's statistic T was examined for these two- dimensional data. DIMTEST results on real tests replicated findings from simulated tests—T dis criminated well between essentially unidimensional and multidimensional tests. T was also highly sen sitive to major traits and insensitive to relatively minor traits that influenced item responses.
Berger, M.P., & Knol, D.L. (1990, April). On the assessment of dimensionality in multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
2.
Bock, R.D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261-280.
3.
De Champlain, A., & Gessaroli, M.E. (1991, April). Assessing test dimensionality using an index based on nonlinear factor analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
4.
Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. (1983). Applications of unidimensional item response theory models to multidimensional data. Applied Psychological Measurement , 7, 189-199.
5.
Etazadi-Amoli, J., & McDonald, R.P. (1983). A second generation nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometrika, 48, 315-342.
6.
Hambleton, R.K., & Rovinelli, R.J. (1986). Assessing the dimensionality of a set of test items. Applied Psychological Measurement , 10, 287-302.
7.
Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff .
8.
Hambleton, R.K., & Traub, R.E. (1973). Analysis of empirical data using two logistic latent trait models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 273-281.
9.
Harrison, D. (1986). Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 91-115.
10.
Hattie, J. (1984). An empirical study of various indices for determining unidimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 49-78.
11.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
12.
Holland, P.W., & Rosenbaum, P.R. (1986). Conditional association and unidimensionality in monotone latent variable models. Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523-1543.
Humphreys, L.G. (1981). The primary mental ability. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das , & N. O'Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning (pp. 87-102). New York: Plenum Press.
15.
Humphreys, L.G. (1985). General intelligence: An integration of factor, test, and simplex theory. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 201-224). New York: Wiley.
16.
Humphreys, L.G. (1986). An analysis and evaluation of test and item bias in the prediction context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 327-333.
17.
Junker, B., & Stout, W. (1991, July). Structural robustness of ability estimates in item response theory. Paper presented at the 7th European Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Trier , Germany.
18.
Linn, R.L., Hastings, N.C., Hu, G., & Ryan, K.E. (1987). Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery: Differential item functioning on the high school form (Tech. Rep. No. F41689-84-D- 0002). Dayton OH: USAF Human Resources Laboratory .
19.
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
Lumsden, J. (1961). The construction of unidimensional tests. Psychological Bulletin, 58, 122-131.
21.
McDonald, R.P. (1962). A general approach to nonlinear factor analysis . Psychometrika, 4, 397-415.
22.
McDonald, R.P., & Ahlawat, K.S. (1974). Difficulty factors in binary data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 82-89.
23.
Nandakumar, R. (1987). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
24.
Nandakumar, R. (1991). Traditional dimensionality vs. essential dimensionality . Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 1-19.
25.
Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W.F. (1993). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Journal of Educational Statistics , 18, 41-68.
26.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1988). User guide: 1985-86 public-use data tapes. Prince-ton NJ.
27.
Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics , 4, 207-230.
28.
Reckase, M.D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401-412.
29.
Reckase, M. (1989). The interpretation and application of multidimensional item response theory models; and computerized testing in the instructional environment (Technical Rep. No. N00014-85-C-0241). Iowa City IA: The American College Testing Program.
30.
Reckase, M.D. (1990, April). Unidimensional data from multidimensional tests and multidimensional data from unidimensional tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Roznowski, M.A., Tucker, L.R., & Humphreys, L.G. (1991). Three approaches to determining the dimensionality of binary data. Applied Psychological Measurement , 15, 109-128.
33.
Stout, W.F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
34.
Stout, W.F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-326.
35.
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Mooney, J. (1989). Trace lines for testlets: A use of multiple-categorical-response models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 247-260.
36.
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 .
37.
Wilson, D., Wood, R.L., & Gibbons, R. (1983). TEST-FAC T- Test scoring and item factor analysis [Computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
38.
Zwick, R. (1987). Assessing the dimensionality of NAEP reading data . Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 293-308.
