Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T01:48:46.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Homogeneity in Latent Trait Models. A Characterization of the Homogeneous Monotone IRT Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jules L. Ellis  and
Arnold L. van den Wollenberg
Jules L. Ellis*
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Arnold L. van den Wollenberg
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jules L. Ellis, University of Nijmegen, Department of Mathematical Psychology, Montessorilaan 3, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The stochastic subject formulation of latent trait models contends that, within a given subject, the event of obtaining a certain response pattern may be probabilistic. Ordinary latent trait models do not imply that these within-subject probabilities are identical to the conditional probabilities specified by the model. The latter condition is called local homogeneity. It is shown that local homogeneity is equivalent to subpopulation invariance of the model. In case of the monotone IRT model, local homogeneity implies absence of item bias, absence of item specific traits, and the possibility to join overlapping subtests. The following characterization theorem is proved: the homogeneous monotone IRT model holds for a finite or countable item pool if and only if the pool is experimentally independent and pairwise nonnegative association holds in every positive subpopulation.

Keywords

stochastic subjectunidimensionalitylocal independenceexperimental independencelocal homogeneitymonotonicitysubpopulation invariancepairwise determinationnonnegative association
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 417 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

This research was supported by the Dutch Interuniversity Graduate School of Psychometrics and Sociometrics. The authors wish to thank two reviewers for their thorough comments.

References

Billingsley, P. (1979). Probability and measure, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cook, D. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design & analysis issues for field settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. L. (1992). Subpopulation invariance and covariance matrices. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1981). When are item response models consistent with observed data?. Psychometrika, 46, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1990). On the sampling theory foundations of item response theory models. Psychometrika, 55, 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1986). Conditional association and unidimensionality in monotone latent variable models. The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale-analysis, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen: Nielson & Lydiche.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrika, 57, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Wollenberg, A. L. (1982). Two new test statistics for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 47, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakker, P. P. (1989). Additive representations of preferences. A new foundation of decision analysis, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar