Establishing guidelines for reasonable item parameter estimation is fundamental to use of the nominal response model. Factors studied were the sample size ratio (SSR), latent trait distribution (LD), and amount of item information. Results showed that the LD accounted for 42.5% of the variability in the accuracy of estimating the slope parameter; the SSR and the maximum item information factors accounted for 29.5% and 3.5% of the accuracy, respectively. In general, as the LD departed from a normal distribution, a larger number of examinees was required to accurately estimate the slope and intercept parameters. Results indicated that an SSR of 10:1 can produce reasonably accurate item parameter estimates when the LD is normal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.
2.
Ankenmann, R. D. , & Stone, C. (1992, April). A monte carlo study of marginal maximum likelihood-parameter estimates for the graded model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
3.
Baker, F. (1992). Equating tests under the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 87–96.
4.
Baker, F. B. (1993a). EQUATE 2.0: A computer program for the characteristic curve method of IRT equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 20–20.
5.
Baker, F. B. (1993b). Equating tests under the nominal response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 239–251.
6.
Baker, F. B. , & Al-Karni, A. (1991). A comparison of two procedures for computing IRT equating coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 147–162.
7.
Bergstrom, B. , & Lunz, M. (1991, April). Confidence in pass/fail decisions for computer-adaptive and paper-and-pencil examinations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
8.
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.
9.
Brown, J. S. , & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155–192.
10.
Brown, J. S. , & Van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4, 379–426.
CTB/McGraw-Hill (1987). California Achievement Tests, Forms E and F, Levels 10–20 (Tech. Rep.). Monterey CA: Author.
13.
De Ayala, R. J. (1992). The nominal response model in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 327–343.
14.
Forster, F. (1987, April). Riding the Rasch tiger: Laying the item bank foundation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.
15.
Harwell, M. , Stone, C. A., Hsu, T., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101–126.
16.
Lane, S. , Stone, C. A., & Hsu, H. (1990). Diagnosing students’ errors in solving algebra word problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Boston.
17.
Levine, M. , & Drasgow, F. (1983). The relation between incorrect option choice and estimated ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 675–685.
18.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.
19.
Nedelsky, L. (1954). Ability to avoid gross error as a measure of achievement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14, 459–472.
20.
Reise, S. P. ,& Yu, J. (1990). Parameter recovery in the graded response model using MULTILOG. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 133–144.
21.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, No. 17.
22.
Stocking, M. L. , & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210.
23.
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345–354.
24.
Thissen, D. J. (1976). Information in wrong responses to Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13, 201–214.
25.
Thissen, D. J. (1988). MULTILOG user’s guide (Version 5.1). Mooresville IN: Scientific Software.
26.
Thissen, D. J. ,& Steinberg, L. (1986). Ataxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567–577.
27.
Thissen, D. J. , Steinberg, L., & Mooney, J. (1989). Trace lines for testlets: A use of multiplecategorical response models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 247–260.
28.
Wainer, H. , & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185–201.
29.
Walker-Bartnick, L. A. (1990). An investigation of factors affecting invariance of item parameter estimates in the partial credit model. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
