Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T15:16:45.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A General Framework for using Latent Class Analysis to Test Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Learning Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

David Rindskopf
David Rindskopf*
Affiliation:
City University of New York Graduate Center
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to David Rindskopf, Educational Psychology, City University of New York Graduate Center, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several articles in the past fifteen years have suggested various models for analyzing dichotomous test or questionnaire items which were constructed to reflect an assumed underlying structure. This paper shows that many models are special cases of latent class analysis. A currently available computer program for latent class analysis allows parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit tests not only for the models suggested by previous authors, but also for many models which they could not test with the more specialized computer programs they developed. Several examples are given of the variety of models which may be generated and tested. In addition, a general framework for conceptualizing all such models is given. This framework should be useful for generating models and for comparing various models.

Keywords

latent class analysislatent structure analysisGuttman models
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 85 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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.)

Footnotes

Information about the Maximum Likelihood Latent Structure Analysis (MLLSA) computer program may be obtained from Clifford Clogg, Population Issues Research Office, 22 Burrowes Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.

The author is indebted to Clifford Clogg, and two anonymous referees for comments which substantially improved this paper. They are not responsible for any errors which might remain.

Thanks also go to Ed Haertel for useful discussions about the general area, and for providing one of the data sets analyzed in the paper.

References

Reference Notes

Clogg, C. C. Unrestricted and restricted maximum likelihood latent structure analysis: A manual for users, University Park, PA: Population Issues Research Office, 1978.Google Scholar
Haertel, E. Personal communication, 1979.Google Scholar

References

Airasian, P. W. Formative evaluation instruments: A construction and validation of tests to evaluate learning over short time periods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1969.Google Scholar
Clogg, C. C., & Sawyer, D. O. A comparison of alternative models for analyzing the scalability of response patterns. In Leinhardt, S. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology 1981, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
Dayton, C. M., & Macready, G. B. A probabilistic model for validation of behavioral hierarchies. Psychometrika, 1976, 41, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, C. M., & Macready, G. B. A scaling model with response errors and intrinsically unscalable respondents. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 343–356.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. The analysis of qualitative variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part I—A modified latent structure approach. American Journal of Sociology, 1974, 79, 1179–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 1974, 61, 215–231.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. A new model for scaling response patterns: An application of the quasi-independence concept. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70, 755–768.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. A conceptual introduction to latent structure analysis. In Lazarsfeld, P. F. (Eds.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences, Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. Latent structure analysis, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1968.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. In Stouffer, S. A. et al. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Owston, R. D. A maximum likelihood approach to the “test of inclusion”. Psychometrika, 1979, 44, 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, C. A. A probabilistic formulation and statistical analysis of Guttman scaling. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 73–78.Google Scholar
Stouffer, S. A., & Toby, J. Role conflict and personality. American Journal of Sociology, 1951, 56, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. T., & Clark, R. M. A test of inclusion which allows for errors of measurement. Psychometrika, 1973, 38, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar