Successfully reported this slideshow.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Item Response Theory in Constructing Measures

5,121 views

Published on

Thsi presnetation is the latest version of all the IRT presentation I made. This also contains Rasch analysis for polytomous scales.

Published in: Education
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

### Item Response Theory in Constructing Measures

1. 1. Carlo Magno, PhD De La Salle University, ManilaPEMEA BOT, Psychometrics and Statistics Division 1
2. 2.  Approaches in Analyzing Test Data Classical test Theory (CTT)  Focus of Analysis in CTT  Limitations of CTT Item Response Theory (IRT)  Approaches in IRT  Advantages of the IRT  Example of an IRT model: Rasch Model What to interpret? IRT for scales Applications of IRT on Tests Workshop 2
3. 3.  Classical Test Theory Item Response Theory 3
4. 4.  Regarded as the “True Score Theory” Responses of examinees are due only to variation in ability of interest Sources of variation  external conditions or internal conditions of examinees that assumed to be constant through rigorous standardization or to have an effect that is nonsystematic or random by nature 4
5. 5. TO = T + E The implication of the classical test theory for test takers is that test are fallible imprecise tools Error = standard error of measurement Sm = S 1 - r True score = M +- Sm = 68% of the normal curve 5
6. 6. One SE Range of Truemean Scores 6
7. 7. • Frequency of correct responses (to indicate question difficulty);• Frequency of responses (to examine distracters);• Reliability of the test and item-total correlation (to evaluate discrimination at the item level) 7
8. 8.  A score is dependent on the performance of the group tested (Norm referenced) The group on which the test has been scaled has outlived has usefulness across time  Changes in the defined population  Changes in educational emphasis There is a need to rapidly make new norms to adopt to the changing times If the characteristics of a person changes and does not fit the specified norm then a norm for that person needs to be created. Each collection of norms has an ability of its own = rubber yardstick 8
9. 9.  Synonymous with latent trait theory, strong true score theory or modern mental test theory Initially designed for tests with right and wrong (dichotomous) responses. Examinees with more ability have higher probabilities for giving correct answers to items than lower ability students (Hambleton, 1989). Each item on a test has its own item characteristic curve that describes the probability of getting each particular item right or wrong given the ability of the test takers (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1997) 9
10. 10.  A function of ability () – latent trait Forms the boundary between the probability areas of answering an item incorrectly and answering the item correctly 10
11. 11. 11
12. 12.  One dimension (Rasch Model) One parameter model = uses only the difficulty parameter Two dimension  Two parameter Model = difficulty and ability parameter Three dimension (Logistic Model) Three Parameter Model = item difficulty, item discrimination, and psuedoguessing 12
13. 13.  Mathematical model linking the observable dichotomously scored b data (item performance) a to the unobservable data (ability)c  Pi(θ) gives the probability of a correct response to item i as a function if ability (θ)  b is the probability of a b=item difficulty correct answer (1+c)/2 a=item discrimination c=psuedoguessing parameter
14. 14.  Two-parameter model: c=0  One-parameter model:a c=0, a=1 b
15. 15.  Three items showing different item difficulties (b)
16. 16.  The calibration of test item difficulty is independent of the person used for the calibration. The method of test calibration does not matter whose responses to these items use for comparison It gives the same results regardless on who takes the test The scores a person obtain on the test can be used to remove the influence of their abilities from the estimation of their difficulty. The result is a sample free item calibration. 16
17. 17.  Rasch’s (1960) main motivation for his model was to eliminate references to populations of examinees in analyses of tests. According to him that test analysis would only be worthwhile if it were individual centered with separate parameters for the items and the examinees (van der Linden & Hambleton, 2004). 17
18. 18.  The Rasch model is a probabilistic unidimensional model which asserts that: (1) the easier the question the more likely the student will respond correctly to it, and (2) the more able the student, the more likely he/she will pass the question compared to a less able student. 18
19. 19.  The model was enhanced to assume that the probability that a student will correctly answer a question is a logistic function of the difference between the students ability [θ] and the difficulty of the question [β] (i.e. the ability required to answer the question correctly), and only a function of that difference giving way to the Rasch model Thus, when data fit the model, the relative difficulties of the questions are independent of the relative abilities of the students, and vice versa (Rasch, 1977). 19
20. 20.  (1) Unidimensionality. All items are functionally dependent upon only one underlying continuum. (2) Monotonicity. All item characteristic functions are strictly monotonic in the latent trait. The item characteristic function describes the probability of a predefined response as a function of the latent trait. 20
21. 21.  (3) Dichotomy of the items. For each item there are only two different responses, for example positive and negative. The Rasch model requires that an additive structure underlies the observed data. This additive structure applies to the logit of Pij, where Pij is the probability that subject i will give a predefined response to item j, being the sum of a subject scale value ui and an item scale value vj, i.e. In (Pij/1 - Pij) = ui + vj 21
22. 22.  Source: Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1, 1-11.. 22
23. 23.  Source: Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1, 1-11. 23
24. 24.  Source: Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived data. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1, 1-11. 24
25. 25.  Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) – Test Characteristics Curve (TCC) Logit measures for each item Item Information Function (IIF) – Test Information Function (TIF) Infit measures 25
26. 26.  TCC: Sum of ICC that make up a test or assessment and can be used to predict scores of examinees at given ability levels. TCC(Ѳ)=∑Pi(Ѳ) Links the true score to the underlying ability measures by the test. TCC shift to the right of the ability scale=difficult items
27. 27.  Steeper slopes indicate greater discriminating ability Flat slopes indicates weak discrimination ability 27
28. 28. Figure 4. Test Characteristic Curve of the PRPF for the Primary Rater Figure 5. Test Characteristic Curve of the Secondary Rater
29. 29.  I(Ѳ), Contribution of particular items to the assessment of ability. Items with higher discriminating power contribute more to measurement precision than items with lower discriminating power. Items tend to make their best contribution to measurement precision around their b value.
30. 30.  Tests with highly constrained TIF are imprecise measures of the for much of the continuum of the domain Tests with TIF that encompass a large range provides precise scores along the continuum of the domain measured. -2.00 SD units to +2.00 SD units – includes 95% of the possible values of the distribution. 30
31. 31. Figure 2. Test Information Function of PRPF for the Primary Raters Figure 3. Test Information Function of the PRPF of the Secondary Rater -4.00 SD to +4.00 SD units -4.00 SD to +4.00 SD units
32. 32. 1 2 2 1 2 30.8 1.50.6 4 1 10.40.2 0.5 3 4 0 0 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 Ability () Ability () Four item characteristic curves Item information for four test items Figure 6: Item characteristics curves and corresponding item information functions
33. 33. their corresponding IFF  The sum of item information functions in a test.  Higher values of the a parameter increase the amount of information an item provides.  The lower the c parameter, the more information an item provides.  The more information provided by an assessment at a particular level, the smaller the errors associated with ability estimation.
34. 34. 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 3 Ability () Figure 7: Test information function for a four–item test
35. 35.  Item Analysis  Determining item difficulty (logit measure of + means an item is difficult, and – means easy).  Utilizing goodness-of-fit criteria to detect items that do not fit the specified response model (Z statistic, INFIT Mean square). Item Selection  Assess the contribution of each items’ test information function that are independent of other items. 36
36. 36.  Item Difficulty  MEASURE=logit measures of proportion correct  Negative values (-) item is easy  Positive values (+) item is difficult Goodness of fit  Values of MNSQ INFIT within 0.8 to 1.2  Z standard scores of 2.o and below are acceptable  High values of item MNSQ indicate a “lack of construct homogeneity” with other items in a scale, whereas low values indicate “redundancy” with other items” (Linacre & Wright, 1998). Item Discrimination  Point biserial estimate=close to 1.0 37
37. 37.  Having more than 2 points in the responses (ex. 4 point scale) Rating scale Model/polytomous Model (Andrich, 1978) Partial Credit Model Graded Response Model Nominal model
38. 38.  Item Response Thresholds  Logistic curves for each scale category  The extent to which the items response levels differ along the continuum of the latent construct (different of a response of “strongly agree” to “agree”).  Ideal to monotonic – the higher the scale, higher threshold values are expected.  Easier items have smaller response threshold than difficult items.  Threshold values that are very close means indistinguishable from each other. 40
39. 39. Example Primary rater: -3.79, -1.95, .96, and 4.35, Secondary rater: -3.90, -2.25, .32, and 3.60.
40. 40. 42Magno, C. (2010). Looking at Filipino preservice teachers value for education through epistemological beliefs. TAPER, 19(1), 61-78.
41. 41.  Self-regulation is defined by Zimmerman (2002) as self-generated thoughts, feeling, and actions that are oriented to attaining goals. Self-regulated learners are characterized to be “proactive in their efforts to learn because they are aware of their strengths and limitations and because they are guided by personally set goals and task-related strategies” (p. 66). 43
42. 42.  Subprocesss of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1986).  Metacognition (planning, organizing, self- instructing, monitoring, self-evaluating)  Motivation (competence, self-efficacy, autonomy)  Behavioral (select, structure, and optimize learning environments) aspects of learning. Self-regulation structured interview – 14 questions (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) 44
43. 43.  SRLIS  Reliability – percentage of agreement between 2 coders  Discriminant validity - high and low achievers were compared across the 14 categories.  Construct validity - self-regulated learning scores were used to predict scores of the students in the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (MAT) together with gender and socio-economic status of parents. 45
44. 44.  To continue the development in the process of arriving at good measures of self- regulation. A Polytomous Item Response Theory This analysis allows reduction of item variances because the influence of person ability is controlled by having a separate calibration (Wright & Masters, 1982; Wright & Stone, 1979). 46
45. 45.  Method  222 college students  SRLIS was administered to 1454  Responses were converted into items dpicting the 14 categories  Item review 47
46. 46.  Principal components analysis: 7 factors were extracted that explains 42.54% of the total variance (55 items loaded highly >.4) The seven factors were conformed (N=305)  All 7 factors were significantly correlated .  7-factor structure was supported: ▪ χ2=332.07, df=1409 ▪ RMS=.07 ▪ RMSEA=.06 ▪ GFI=.91, ▪ NFI=.89 48
47. 47. 49
48. 48. 50
49. 49.  The average step calibrations for  Memory strategy are, -1.57, .25, 1.71, and 3.41  Goal setting, -3.19, -.92, 1.37, and 3.61  Self-evaluation, -2.71, -.59, 1.25, and 3.15  Seeking assistance, -2.70, -1.06, .41, and 2.30  Environmental structuring, 2.32, -.42, 1.40, and 3.47  Responsibility, -3.43, -1.20, .98, and 3.98  Organizing, -2.88, -.95, .79, and 2.76 51
50. 50. 52
51. 51. 53
52. 52. 54
53. 53.  3. I take my own notes in class 55
54. 54.  2. I isolate myself from unecessary noisy places 56
55. 55. 57
56. 56.  3. I put my notebooks, handouts, and the like in a certain container. 4. I study at my own pace. 58
57. 57.  Item Analysis  Determining sample invariant item parameters.  Utilizing goodness-of-fit criteria to detect items that do not fit the specified response model (χ2, analysis of residuals). Item Selection  Assess the contribution of each item the test information function independent of other items.
58. 58.  Item banking  Test developers can build an assessment to fit any desired test information function with items having sufficient properties.  Comparisons of items can be made across dissimilar samples.
59. 59.  Workshop 61