According to the weak local independence approach to defining dimensionality, the fundamental quantities for determining a test's dimensional structure are the co variances of item-pair responses conditioned on exam inee trait level. This paper describes three dimensionality assessment procedures-HCA/CCPROX, DIMTEST, and DETECT—that use estimates of these con ditional covariances. All three procedures are nonpara metric ; that is, they do not depend on the functional form of the item response functions. These procedures are applied to a dimensionality study of the LSAT, which illustrates the capacity of the approaches to assess the lack of unidimensionality, identify groups of items manifesting approximate simple structure, determine the number of dominant dimensions, and measure the amount of multidimensionality.
Ackerman, T. (1994, April). Graphical representation of multidimensional IRT analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans LA.
2.
Ackerman, T. (1996). Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 311-329.
3.
Bock, R.D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261-270.
4.
Camilli, G., Wang, M.M., & Fesq, J. (1995). The effects of dimensionality on equating the Law School Admission Test. Journal of Educational Measurement , 32, 79-96.
5.
DeChamplain, A. (1994, January). Assessing the dimensionality of the LSAT at the section level. Paper presented at the University of Illinois, Department of Statistics, Champaign.
6.
DeChamplain, A. (1995a, April). An overview of nonlinear factor analysis and its relationship to item response theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
7.
DeChamplain, A. (1995b). Assessing the effect of multidimensionality on LSAT equating for subgroups of test takers (Law School Admission Council Statistical Report 95-01. New Town PA: Law School Admission Council.
8.
Douglas, J., Kim, H.R., Roussos, L., Stout, W.F., & Zhang, J. (1997). LSAT dimensionality analysis for the December 1991, June 1992, and October 1992 administrations (Law School Admission Council Research Report. New Town PA: Law School Admission Council.
9.
Fraser, C. (1988). NOHARM: A computer program for fitting both unidimensional and multidimensional normal ogive models of latent trait theoryNew South Wales, Australia: Center for Behavioral Studies, The University of New England.
10.
Gao, F., & Stout, W. (1996). Using resampling to eliminate estimation bias . Submitted for publication.
11.
Hattie, J., Krakowski, K., Rogers, H.J., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). An assessment of Stout's index of essential unidimensionality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 1-14.
Jain, A., & Dubes, R. (1988). Algorithms for clustering data. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
14.
Junker, B.W. (1993). Progress in characterizing strictly unidimensional IRT representations. The Annals of Statistics, 21, 1359-1378.
15.
Junker, B., & Stout, W.F. (1994). Robustness of ability estimation when multiple traits are present with one trait dominant. In D. Laveault, B. Zumbo, M. Gessaroli, & M. Boss (Eds.), Modern theories of measurement: Problems and issues (pp. 31-61). Ottawa, Canada: Edumetrics Research Group, University of Ottawa.
16.
Kim, H.R. (1994). New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55-12B, 5598.
17.
Knol, D.L., & Berger, P.F. (1991). Empirical comparison between factor analysis and multidimensional item response models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 457-477.
18.
Law School Admission Council. (1991). The Law School Admission Test: Sources, contents, uses. New Town PA: Author.
19.
McDonald, R.P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100-117.
20.
McDonald, R.P. (1982). Linear versus nonlinear models in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 379-396.
21.
McDonald, R.P. (1994). Testing for approximate dimensionality. In D. Laveault, B. D. Zumbo, M. E. Gessaroli, & M. W. Boss (Eds.), Modern theories in measurement: Problems and issues (pp. 31-61). Ottawa , Canada: Edumetrics Research Group, University of Ottawa.
22.
Mokken, R.J. ( 1971 ). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. New York/Berlin: De Gruyter .
23.
Nandakumar, R. (1991). Traditional dimensionality versus essential dimensionality . Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 99-117.
24.
Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W. (1993). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 18, 41-68.
25.
Reese, L.M. (1995a). A comparison of local item dependence levels for the LSAT with two other tests. Unpublished manuscript. New Town PA: Law School Admission Council.
26.
Reese, L.M. (1995b). The impact of local dependencies on some LSAT outcomes (Law School Admission Council Statistical Report 95-02. New Town PA: Law School Admission Council.
27.
Roussos, L. (1995a). A new dimensionality estimation tool for multiple-item tests and a new DIF analysis paradigm based on multidimensionality and construct validity. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57-04B, 2956.
28.
Roussos, L. (1995b). Hierarchical agglomerative clustering computer program user's manual. Urbana-Champaign : Statistical Laboratory for Educational and Psychological Measurement, Department of Statistics, University of Illinois.
29.
Roussos, L., & Stout, W.F. (1996, April). Simulation study of the effectiveness of using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect simulated dimensionality structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , New York.
30.
Stout, W.F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.
31.
Stout, W.F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-326.
32.
Wang, M. (1988). Measurement bias in the application of a unidimensional model to multidimensional item response data. Unpublished manuscript, Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ.
33.
Yen, W.M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125-145.
34.
Zhang, J. (1996). Some fundamental issues in item response theory with applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Statistics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
35.
Zhang, J., & Stout, W.F. (1996a, April). A new theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its estimation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
