Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:20:57.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locally Dependent Latent Trait Model for Polytomous Responses with Application to Inventory of Hostility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Edward H. Ip ,
Yuchung J. Wang ,
Paul de Boeck  and
Michel Meulders
Edward H. Ip*
Affiliation:
Wake Forest University
Yuchung J. Wang
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Paul de Boeck
Affiliation:
K.U. Leuven
Michel Meulders
Affiliation:
K.U. Leuven
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Edward Ip, Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, MRI Building, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. Email: eip@wfubmc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychological tests often involve item clusters that are designed to solicit responses to behavioral stimuli. The dependency between individual responses within clusters beyond that which can be explained by the underlying trait sometimes reveals structures that are of substantive interest. The paper describes two general classes of models for this type of locally dependent responses. Specifically, the models include a generalized log-linear representation and a hybrid parameterization model for polytomous data. A compact matrix notation designed to succinctly represent the system of complex multivariate polytomous responses is presented. The matrix representation creates the necessary formulation for the locally dependent kernel for polytomous item responses. Using polytomous data from an inventory of hostility, we provide illustrations as to how the locally dependent models can be used in psychological measurement.

Keywords

generalized log-linear modelhybrid kernelcombination dependency modelsEM algorithmsocial inhibition
Type
Theory And Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 191 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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.)

References

Aigner, M. (1979). Combinatorial Theory. Berlin: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Petrov, B.N. and Csaki, F. (Eds.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory (pp. 271–281). Budapest, Hungary: Academiai KiadoGoogle Scholar
Baker, F.B. (1992). Item Response Theory. New York: Marcel DekkerGoogle Scholar
Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E. (1978). Information and Exponential Families in Statistical Theory. New York: John WileyGoogle Scholar
Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E., & Koudou, A.E. (1995). Cuts in natural exponential family. Theory of Probability and Its Applications, 40, 361–372Google Scholar
Becker, R.A., Chambers, J.M., & Wilks, A.R. (1988). The New S Language. New York: Chapman & HallGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Y., Fienberg, S.E., & Holland, P. (1975). Discrete Multivariate Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Bejar, I.I. (1983). Achievement Testing: Recent Advances. Beverly Hills, CA: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, T., & Fox, C.M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental Measurements in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradlow, E., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D.R. (1972). The analysis of multivariate binary data. Applied Statistics, 21, 113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deming, W.E., & Stephan, F.F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 427–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., & Rubin, D.B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 39, 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson (Whitely), S.E. (1984). A general latent model for response processes. Psychometrika, 49, 175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, N.S., & Hunt, J.M. (1968). S-R inventories of hostility and comparisons of the proportions of variance from persons, behaviors, and situations for hostility and anxiousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1974). Introduction to the Theory of Psychological Tests (in German). Bern, Switzerland: HuberGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1994). The linear logistic test model. In Fischer, G.H. & Molenaar, I. W. (Eds.), Rasch Models: Foundation, Recent Developments, and Applications (pp. 131–156). New York: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, G.M., & Laird, N.M. (1993). A likelihood-based method for analyzing longitudinal binary responses. Biometrika, 80, 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, G.M., Laird, N.M., & Rotnitzky, A. G. (1993). Regression models for discrete longitudinal responses (with discussion). Statistical Science, 8, 284–309Google Scholar
Gibbons, R.D., & Hedekker, D.R. (1992). Full-information item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. (1990). The Dutch identity: A new tool for the study of item response models. Psychometrika, 55, 5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskens, M., & De Boeck, P. (1995). Componential IRT models for polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 364–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskens, M., & De Boeck, P. (1997). A parametric model for local dependence among test items. Psychological Methods, 2, 261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoskens, M., & De Boeck, P. (2001). Multidimensional componential item response models for polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H. (2000). Adjusting for information inflation due to local dependency in moderately large item clusters. Psychometrika, 65, 73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H. (2001). Testing for local dependency in dichotomous and polytomous item response models. Psychometrika, 66, 109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H. (2002). Locally dependent latent trait model and the Dutch identity revisited. Psychometrika, 67, 367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H., & Wang, Y. J. (2003). A strategy for designing telescoping models for analyzing multiway contingency tables using mixed parameters. Sociological Methods and Research, 31, 291–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannarone, R.J. (1986). Conjunctive item response theory kernels. Psychometrika, 51, 357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B. W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood-based ability estimation for polytomous items. Psychometrika, 56, 255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeves, J. P. (1997). International Practice in Rasch Measurement, with Particular Reference to Longitudinal Research Studies. Invited paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rasch Measurement Special Interest Group. Chicago: American Educational Research AssociationGoogle Scholar
Laird, N.M. (1991). Topics in likelihood-based methods for longitudinal data analysis. Statistica Sinica, 1, 33–50Google Scholar
Lord, F.M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J.C., & Bates, D.M. (1995). Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 4, 12–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. (1988). Item bundles. Psychometrika, 53, 349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussos, L.A., Stout, W.F., & Marden, J. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, No. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc. (1999). SAS OnlineDoc (Version 8) [software manual on CD-ROM]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimensions of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, S., & Ip, E.H. (2002). Empirical Bayes and item clustering effects in latent variable hierarchical models: A case study from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vansteelandt, K. (1999). A formal model for the competency-demand hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 13, 429–4423.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, H., & Kiely, G.L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y.J. (1986). Ordered-dependent parameterization of multinomial distributions. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 13, 199–205Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. (1990). Graphical Models in Applied Mathematical Multivariate Statistics. West Sussex, UK: WileyGoogle Scholar
Yen, W.M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item independence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Stout, W. (1999). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L.P., & Prentice, R.L. (1990). Correlated binary regression using a generalized quadratic model. Biometrics, 77, 642–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar