The present study compares the fit of two- and three-parameter logistic (2PL and 3PL) models of item response theory in the performance of preschool children on the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices. The test of Raven is widely used for evaluating nonverbal intelligence of factor g. Studies comparing models with real data are scarce on the literature and this is the first to compare models of two and three parameters for the test of Raven, evaluating the informational gain of considering guessing probability. Participants were 582 Brazilian’s preschool children (Mage = 57 months; SD = 7 months; 46% female) who responded individually to the instrument. The model fit indices suggested that the 2PL fit better to the data. The difficulty and ability parameters were similar between the models, with almost perfect correlations. Differences were observed in terms of discrimination and test information. The principle of parsimony must be called for comparing models.
AgrestiA. (2019). An introduction to categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
2.
AngeliniA. L.AlvesI. C. B.CustódioE. M.DuarteW. F.DuarteJ. L. M. (1999). Raven’s coloured progressive matrices: Special scale. Centro Editor de Testes e Pesquisas em Psicologia.
3.
ArthurW.Jr.DayD. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven advanced progressive matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 394-403.
4.
AsparouhovT. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 411-434. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_4
5.
AsparouhovT. (2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439-460. doi:10.1080/03610920500476598
BilkerW. B.HansenJ. A.BrensingerC. M.RichardJ.GurR. E.GurR. C. (2012). Development of abbreviated nine-item forms of the Raven’s standard progressive matrices test. Assessment, 19(3), 354-369.
8.
BonifayW.CaiL. (2017). On the complexity of item response theory modsels. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(4), 465-484. doi:10.1080/00273171.2017.1309262
9.
ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.ChanK. Y.DrasgowF.WilliamsB. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 523-562. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_03
10.
ChiesiF.CiancaleoniM.GalliS.MorsanyiK.PrimiC. (2012). Item response theory analysis and differential item functioning across age, gender and country of a short form of the advanced progressive matrices. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 390-396. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.007
11.
De MarsC. E. (2010). Guessing parameter. In SalkindN. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 557-558). SAGE.
12.
DiamondJ.EvansW. (1973). The correction for guessing. Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 181-191. doi:10.3102/00346543043002181
13.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FosterG. C.MinH.ZickarM. J. (2017). Review of item response theory practices in organizational research: Lessons learned and paths forward. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 465-486. doi:10.1177/1094428116689708
15.
HabermanS. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29(1), 205-220. doi:10.2307/2529686
16.
HambletonR. K. (1994). Item response theory: A broad psychometric framework for measurement advances. Psicothema, 6(3), 535-556.
17.
KolenM. J.BrennanR. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3rd ed.). Springer.
18.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
LúcioP. S.Cogo-MoreiraH.PuglisiM.PolanczykG. V.LittleT. D. (2019). Psychometric investigation of the Raven’s colored progressive matrices test in a sample of preschool children. Assessment, 26(7), 1399-1408.
20.
MokkenR. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis, volume 1 of methods and models in the social sciences. The Gruyter.
21.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2018). Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied researchers: User’s guide (Version 8).
22.
PaulaJ. J.SchlottfeldtC. G. M. F.Malloy-DinizL. F.MizutaG. A. A. (2018). Raven’s coloured progressive matrices: Manual. Pearson Clinical Brasil.
23.
RavenJ.RavenJ.CourtJ. (2003). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford Psychologists Press.
24.
ReiseS. P. (2015). Item response theory. In CautinR. L.LilienfeldS. O. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (pp. 1-10). John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp357
25.
ReiseS. P.AinsworthA. T.HavilandM. (2005). Item response theory: Fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 95-101. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00342.x
26.
ReiseS. P.WallerN. G. (2009). Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 27-48. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153553
27.
SamejimaF. (1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1(1), i-169. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x
28.
SenS.BradshawL. (2017). Comparison of relative fit indices for diagnostic model selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(6), 422-438. doi:10.1177/0146621617695521
29.
TraubR. E. (1983). A priori considerations in choosing an item response model. In HambletonR. K. (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 57-70). Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
30.
VandekerckhoveJ.MatzkeD.WagenmakersE. J. (2015). Model comparison and the principle of parsimony. In BusemeyerJ. R.WangZ.TownsendJ. T.EidelsA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (pp. 300-319). Oxford Library of Psychology.
31.
Van der ElstW.OuwehandC.van RijnP.LeeN.Van BoxtelM.JollesJ. (2013). The shortened Raven standard progressive matrices: Item response theory-based psychometric analyses and normative data. Assessment, 20(1), 48-59. doi:10.1177/1073191111415999
