Macready & Dayton (1980) showed that state mas tery models are handled optimally within the general latent class framework for data from a single time point. An extension of this idea is presented here for longitudinal data obtained from repeated measure ments across time. The static approach is extended using multiple-indicator Markov chain models. The approach presented here emphasizes the dynamic as pects of the process of change, such as growth, decay, and stability. The general approach is presented, and models with purely categorical and ordered categorical states and several extensions of these models are dis cussed. Problems of estimation, identification, assess ment of model fit, and hypothesis testing associated with these models also are discussed. The applicability of these models is demonstrated using data from a lon gitudinal study on solving arithmetic word problems. The advantages and disadvantages of using the ap proach presented here are discussed. Index terms: arithmetic word problems, dynamic latent class mod els, latent class models, longitudinal categorical data, Markov models, state mastery models.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aitkin, M., Anderson, D., & Hinde, J. (1981). Statistical modelling of data on teaching styles . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 144, (Series A), 419-461.
2.
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-723.
3.
Clogg, C.C. (1977). Unrestricted and restricted maximum likelihood latent structure analysis: A manual for users (Working Paper 1977-09). University Park PA: Population Issues Research Center .
4.
Clogg, C.C., & Goodman, L.A. (1984). Latent structure analysis of a set of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association,79, 762-771.
5.
Clogg, C.C., & Goodman, L.A. (1985). Simultaneous latent structure analysis in several populations. In N. B. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1985 (pp. 81-110). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
6.
Clogg, C.C., & Sawyer, D.O. (1981). A comparison of alternative models for analyzing the scalability of response patterns. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1981 (pp. 240-280). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Collins, L.M., & Cliff, N. (1990). Using the longitudinal Guttman simplex as a basis for measuring growth. Psychological Bulletin,108, 128-134.
8.
Collins, L.M., Cliff, N., & Dent, C.W. (1988). The longitudinal Guttman simplex: A new methodology for measurement of dynamic constructs in longitudinal panel studies. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 217-230.
9.
Collins, L.M., & Wugalter, S.E. (1992). Latent class models for stage-sequential dynamic latent variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 131-157,
10.
Croon, M. (1990). Latent class analysis with ordered latent classes . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 43, 171-192.
11.
Dayton, C.M., & Macready, G.B. (1980). A scaling model with response errors and intrinsically unscalable respondents. Psychometrika , 45, 343-356.
12.
Goodman, L.A. (1974). The analysis of systems of qualitative variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part I: A modified latent structure approach. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1179-1259.
13.
Graham, J.W., Collins, L.M., Wugalter, S.E., Chung, N.K., & Hansen, W.B. (1991). Modeling transitions in latent stage-sequential processes: A substance use prevention example. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 48-57.
14.
Haberman, S.J. (1979). Analysis of qualitative data: New developments (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Haberman, S.J. (1988). A stabilized Newton-Raphson algorithm for log-linear models for frequency tables derived by indirect observation. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1988 (pp. 193-211). Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
16.
Hagenaars, J.A. (1990). Categorical longitudinal data. Log-linear panel, trend, and cohort analysis. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
17.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI user's guide. Chicago : National Educational Resources.
18.
Katz, R.W. (1981). On some criteria for estimating the order of a Markov chain. Technometrics, 23, 243-249.
19.
Langeheine, R. (1988). New developments in latent class theory. In R. Langeheine & J. Rost (Eds.), Latent trait and latent class models (pp. 77-108). New York: Plenum.
20.
Langeheine, R. (1991). Latente Markov-Modelle zur Evaluation von Stufentheorien der Entwicklung [Latent Markov models for evaluating stage theories of development] . Empirische Pädagogik, 5, 169-189.
21.
Langeheine, R., & van de Pol, F. (1990). A unifying framework for Markov modeling in discrete space and discrete time. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 416-441.
22.
Langeheine, R., & van de Pol, F. (1993). Multiple indicator Markov models. In R. Steyer, K. F. Wender, & K. F. Widaman (Eds.), Psychometric methodology. Proceedings of the 7th European Meeting of the Psychometric Society in Trier (pp. 248-252). Stuttgart: Fischer .
Macready, G.B., & Dayton, C.M. (1980). The nature and use of state mastery models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 493-516.
25.
Macready, G.B., & Dayton, C.M. (1994). Latent class models for longitudinal assessment of trait acquisition. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 245-273). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
26.
Meskauskas, J.A. (1976). Evaluation models for criterion-referenced testing: Views regarding mastery and standard-setting. Review of Educational Research, 46, 133-158.
27.
Raftery, A.E. (1986). A note on Bayes factors for log-linear contingency table models with vague prior information. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 48, (Series B), 249-250.
28.
Read, T.R.C., & Cressie, N.A.C. (1988). Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York: Springer.
29.
Rendtel, U., Langeheine, R., & Bemtsen, R. (1992, June). Household income: Self-assessed or computed from components? The estimation of poverty-dynamics using different household income measures. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Trento, Italy.
30.
Renkl, A., & Stem, E. (1994). Die Bedeutung von kognitiven Eingangsvoraussetzungen und Lemaufgaben für das Lösen von einfachen und komplexen Textaufgaben [The significance of cognitive prerequisites and learning opportunities at school for solving simple and complex mathematical word problems]. Zeitschrift für PädagogischePsychologie, 8, 27-39.
31.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
32.
Spada, H., & McGaw, B. (1985). The assessment of learning effects with linear logistic test models. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.), Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics (pp. 169-191). Orlando FL: Academic Press.
33.
van dePol, F., & de Leeuw, J. (1986). A latent Markov model to correct for measurement error. Sociological Methods and Research, 15, 118-141.
34.
van de Pol, F., & Langeheine, R. (1990). Mixed Markov latent class models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology1990 (pp. 213-247). Oxford: Blackwell.
35.
van de Pol, F., & Langeheine, R. (1992, June), Analysing measurement error in quasi-experimental data. An application of latent class models to labor market data. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Trento, Italy.
36.
van de Pol, F., Langeheine, R., & de Jong, W. (1991). PANMARK user manual. PANel analysis using MARKov chains. Version 2.2 (3rd ed.). Voorburg: Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics .
