Item response theory (IRT) is a psychometric technique used in the development, evaluation, improvement, and scoring of multi-item scales. This pedagogical article provides the necessary information needed to understand how to conduct, interpret, and report results from two commonly used ordered polytomous IRT models (Samejima’s graded response [GR] model and reduced GR model). Throughout this article, simulated data from a multi-item scale is used to illustrate IRT analyses. The simulated data and IRTPRO version 2.1 point-and-click commands needed to reproduce all analyses in this article are available as supplemental online materials at http://jea.sagepub.com/maint. The intent of this article is to provide an overview of essential components of an IRT analysis to enable increased access to this powerful tool for applied early adolescence researchers.
BakerF. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed., ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458 219). College Park, MD: Eric Clearing House on Assessment and Evaluation.
2.
CaiL.du ToitS. H. C.ThissenD. (2011a). IRTPRO: Flexible professional item response theory modeling for patient reported outcomes (Version 2.1) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
3.
CaiL.du ToitS. H. C.ThissenD. (2011b). IRTPRO: User guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
4.
CaiL.Maydeu-OlivaresA.CoffmanD. L.ThissenD. (2006). Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of item response theory models for sparse 2P tables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 173-194. doi:10.1348/000711005X66419
5.
ChenW-H.ThissenD. (1997). Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265-289. doi:10.3102/10769986022003265
6.
De AyalaR. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
EdelenM. O.ReeveB. B. (2007). Applying item theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5-18. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
8.
EdwardsM. C. (2009). An introduction to item response theory using the need for cognition scale. Social and Personality Compass, 3, 507-529. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00194.x
9.
EmbretsonS. E. (1996). Item response theory models and spurious interaction effects in factorial ANOVA designs. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 201-212.
10.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
GreenB. F.BockR. D.HumphreysL. G.LinnR. L.RechaseM. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 347-360.
12.
HabermanS. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol. 1: Introductory topics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
HambletonR. K.SwaminathanH.RogersH. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
KangS-M.WallerN. G. (2005). Moderated multiple regression, spurious interaction effects, and IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 87-105. doi:10.1177/0146621604272737
16.
LordF. M. (1952). A theory of test scores (Psychometric Monograph, No. 7). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Corporation.
17.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.CaiL.HernándezA. (2011). Comparing the fit of item response theory and factor analysis models. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 333-356.
19.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.JoeH. (2005). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n contingency tables: A unified framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009-1020.
20.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.JoeH. (2006). Limited information goodness-of-fit testing in multidimensional contingency tables. Psychometrika, 71, 713-732. doi:10.1007/s11336-005-1295-9
21.
MorizotJ.AinsworthA. T.ReiseS. P. (2007). Toward modern psychometrics: Application of item response theory models in personality research. In RobinsR. W.FraleyR. C.KruegerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality (pp. 407-423). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
23.
NeringM. LOstiniR. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of polytomous item response theory models. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
OrlandoM.ThissenD. (2000). Likelihood-based item fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 50-64. doi:10.1177/01466216000241003
25.
OrlandoM.ThissenD. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-χ2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289-298. doi:10.1177/0146621603027004004
26.
ReckaseM. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
27.
ReeveB. B.FayersP. (2005). Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In FayersP.HaysR. D. (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
ReeveB. B.HayesR. D.BjornerJ. B.CookK. F.CraneP. K.TeresiJ. A.. . . CellaD. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks. Medical Care, 45, S22-S31.
29.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometric Monograph No. 17, Part 2). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
30.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM. (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
31.
SijtsmaK.MolenaarI. W. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
StoneC. A.ZhangB. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 331-352. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01150.x
33.
ThissenD.WainerH. (Eds.). (2001). Test scoring. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
WirthR. J.EdwardsM. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58-79.
35.
YuC.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://statmodel2.com/download/Yudissertation.pdf
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
