Bi-Factor MIRT Observed-Score Equating for Mixed-Format Tests

Lee, Guemin; Lee, Won‐Chan

doi:10.1080/08957347.2016.1171770

Cited by 24 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason for applying the two FPC methods to the bifactor model is twofold: (a) the bifactor model is flexible enough to represent structures that are commonly found in educational and psychological measurement; and (b) only a series of two-dimensional integrals needs to be evaluated regardless of the number of factors in the model. In educational measurement, the bifactor model has been applied to a variety of areas, including calibration of testlet-based tests (DeMars, 2006), vertical scaling (Li & Lissitz, 2012), differential item functioning (Jeon, Rijmen, & Rabe-Hesketh, 2013), multiple-group analysis (Cai et al, 2011), and test equating (Lee & Lee, 2016;Lee et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two IRT Fixed Parameter Calibration Methods for the Bifactor Model

Kim

2019

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New items are often evaluated prior to their operational use to obtain item response theory (IRT) item parameter estimates for quality control purposes. Fixed parameter calibration is one linking method that is widely used to estimate parameters for new items and place them on the desired scale. This article provides detailed descriptions of two fixed parameter calibration methods for the bifactor model and compares their relative performance through simulation. The two methods, which were natural generalizations of their counterparts in the unidimensional context, are the one prior weights updating and multiple expectation‐maximization (EM) cycles (OWU‐MEM) and multiple prior weights updating and multiple EM cycles (MWU‐MEM) methods. In addition, for comparison purposes, the separate calibration method with Haebara linking was included in the simulation. In general, the MWU‐MEM method recovered item parameters well for both equivalent and nonequivalent groups, whereas the OWU‐MEM method worked well only for equivalent groups. With a few exceptions, the MWU‐MEM and Haebara methods showed comparable item parameter recovery.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two IRT Fixed Parameter Calibration Methods for the Bifactor Model

Kim

2019

J Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an alternative approach, a true-score unidimensional approximation of the MIRT equating procedure was proposed by Brossman and Lee (2013). For constrained MIRT models such as the bi-factor model, it is possible to use just single general ability as the reference scale (Lee et al, 2015). (Lee et al, 2015) and observed-score equating methods have been developed.…”

Section: Mirt Equatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For constrained MIRT models such as the bi-factor model, it is possible to use just single general ability as the reference scale (Lee et al, 2015). (Lee et al, 2015) and observed-score equating methods have been developed. Tao and Cao (2016) proposed true-score and observed-score testlet response model MIRT equating procedures.…”

Section: Mirt Equatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greater attention has been given in recent years to the application of bi-factor MIRT models due to its appealing properties of computational efficiency and conceptual clarity. Some examples of such attempts are differential item functioning (Fukuhara & Kamata, 2011), vertical scaling (Koepfler, 2012;, computerized adaptive testing (Seo, 2011;Weiss & Gibbons, 2012), and equating Lee et al, 2015;Peterson, 2014).…”

Section: Other Mirt Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, with the growing realization that a test is inherently multidimensional and requires multiple distinct abilities to reach a correct answer, the research is rapidly expanding to include various MIRT frameworks in equating. So far, the MIRT models presented in the equating literature include (a) simple-structure (SS-MIRT) models (Lee & Brossman, 2012), (b) full-MIRT models (Brossman & Lee, 2013;Lee, Lee, & Brennan, 2014;Peterson & Lee, 2014), (c) bi-factor (BF-MIRT) models (Kim, Lim, & Lee, in press;Lee, et al, 2016;Peterson & Lee, 2014), and (d) testlet response (TR-MIRT) models (Kim et al, in press;Tao & Cao, 2016). In this section, the first part mainly focuses on a review of SS-MIRT equating and the second part presents a summary of the literature related to other MIRT equating procedures.…”

Section: Multidimensional Irt Equatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations