200 likes | 576 Views
Exploring new versions of DIMTEST for use with Polytomous Data. Tan Li Louis Roussos Measured Progress July 24, 2009. Outline. Introduction Dimensionality Hypothesis Test Poly-DIMTEST Methods Poly-DIMTEST without AT2 Poly-NEWDIM Simulation Study Results & Conclusions Future Work.
E N D
Exploring new versions of DIMTEST for use with Polytomous Data Tan Li Louis Roussos Measured Progress July 24, 2009
Outline • Introduction • Dimensionality Hypothesis Test • Poly-DIMTEST • Methods • Poly-DIMTEST without AT2 • Poly-NEWDIM • Simulation Study • Results & Conclusions • Future Work
Introduction • Dimensionality Hypothesis Test • Important assumption for many IRT models • Equating • Scoring • Scaling • Calibration • DIF analysis • Hypothesis Test • H0: dE = 1 vs. H1: dE > 1
Introduction • Poly-DIMTEST (Nandakumar, Yu, Li, & Stout, 1998) • Hypothesis test • H0: vs. H1: • Split all the test items into three subtests: AT1, AT2 and PT • The test statistic: • Stand Error of CCOV comes from a complicated formula
Introduction • Poly-DIMTEST • Weaknesses • Difficulty on finding and choosing AT2 items • Not enough items left for PT
Methods • Poly-DIMTEST without AT2 • Based on dichotomous version of DIMTEST without AT2 • (Stout, Froelich, & Gao, 2001) • Steps • Split all the test items into two subtests: AT and PT • Fit a unidimensional nonparamatric model to the original data by kernel smoothing • Simulate N samples from the model to take the place ofAT2 • The test statistic: • Stand Error of CCOV comes from the same formula provided by Nandakumar, et al. (1998)
Methods • Poly-NEWDIM • Based on dichotomous version of NEWDIM(Seo & Roussos, 2009) • Similar procedure with Poly-DIMTEST without AT2 • The test statistic: • Standard Errorcomes from the Standard Deviation over the simulated samples
Simulation Study • Dichotomous items • All of the parameters were randomly generated from the distributions based on • real data from a large multi-year pool of 729 grade 5 math items
Simulation Study • Polytomous items • All of the parameters were randomly generated from the distributions based on • real data from a large multi-year pool of 729 grade 5 math items
Simulation Study • Type I Error Study • Power Study • 2 dimensions simple structure
Simulation Study • Factors • 500 examinees and 1000 examinees • 52 pts test and 32 pts test • AT subtest • 52pts test: 5 MC, 10 MC, 2 CR, and 5 CR items • 32pts test: 3 MC, 6 MC, and 3 CR items
Results Type I Error – 52 pts test, 400 trials 500 Examinees 1000 Examinees < 3 [3,7] >7
Results Type I Error– 32 pts test, 400 trials 500 Examinees 1000 Examinees < 3 [3,7] >7
Results Power– 52 pts test,400 trials 500 Examinees 1000 Examinees < 85 ≥85
Results Power– 32 pts test, 400 trials 500 Examinees 1000 Examinees < 85 ≥85
Conclusion • Type I error study • Conservative Type I error behavior • Poly-NEWDIM performs closer to nominal (0.05). • Power study • Poly-NEWDIM has greater power than Poly-DIMTEST without AT2 • Poly-NEWDIM provides adequate power for a variety of conditions.
Future Work • More examinees • Dimensionality structure • Item parameter simulation models • Develop a method to choose AT subtest for mixed MC and CR tests • Real datasets • Skewed ability distributions
Reference • Nandakumar, R., Yu, F., Li, H., & Stout, W. (1998). Assessing Unidimensionality of Polytomous Data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 99-115. • Stout, W., Froelich, A., & Gao, F. (2001). Using Resampling Methods to Produce an Improved DIMTEST Procedure. Essays on item response theory, 357-375 • Seo, M., & Roussos, L. (2009). Evaluation of DIMTEST Effect-Size Measure and Its Application. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego.
Acknowledgement Measured Progress Department of Psychometrics Dr. Louis Roussos