Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:46:15.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Graded Responses and Joining Categories: A Rejoinder to Andrich' “Models For Measurement, Precision, and Nondichotomization of Graded Responses”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Edw E. Roskam
Edw E. Roskam*
Affiliation:
Nijmegen Institute of Cognition and Information, University of Nijmegen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to E. E. Ch. I. Roskam, University of Nijmegen/NICI, Department of Mathematical Psychology, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Andrich (1995) claims that the “probability distribution [of graded responses] reflects the precision with which the data are collected” (p. 7), and that an “increase in precision of responses [ . . . ] destroys the joining assumption” (p. 22). He stressed “that Jansen and Roskam simply asserted this equivalence [of the joining assumption and ξ-invariance], and did not derive it.” However, Jansen and Roskam (1986) and Roskam and Jansen (1989)—in the sequel referred to as JR—have neither asserted an equivalence between ξ-invariance and the joining assumption, nor defined ξ-invariance such that it could be considered in terms of estimation.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 27 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrich, D. (1995). Models for measurement, precision, and the nondichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrika, 60, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. L., van den Wollenberg, A. L. (1993). Local homogeneity in latent trait models. A characterization of the homogeneous monotone IRT model. Psychometrika, 58, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education 3d ed.,, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1990). On the sampling theory foundations of item response theory models. Psychometrika, 55, 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, P. G. W., Roskam, Edw E. (1986). Latent trait models and dichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrika, 51, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, H. (1987). A Rasch model for continuous ratings. Psychometrika, 52, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, A. M., Graybill, F. A., Boes, D. C. (1985). Introduction to theory of statistics 3d ed.,, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1966). An individualistic approach to item analysis. In Lazarsfeld, P. F., Henri, N. W. (Eds.), Readings in mathematical social science, Chicago/Cambridge: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Roskam, Edw E., Jansen, P. G. W. (1989). Conditions for Rasch-dichotomizability of the unidimensional polytomous Rasch model. Psychometrika, 54, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samejima, F. A. (1973). Homogeneous case of the continuous response model. Psychometrika, 38, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samejima, F. A. (1974). Normal ogive model on the continuous response level in the multidimensional latent space. Psychometrika, 39, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar