Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:02:36.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stochastic Ordering Using the Latent Trait and the Sum Score in Polytomous IRT Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Bas T. Hemker ,
Klaas Sijtsma ,
Ivo W. Molenaar  and
Brian W. Junker
Bas T. Hemker*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Klaas Sijtsma
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Ivo W. Molenaar
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Brian W. Junker
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bas T. Hemker, National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO), P.O. Box 1034, 6801 MG Arnhem, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a restricted class of item response theory (IRT) models for polytomous items the unweighted total score has monotone likelihood ratio (MLR) in the latent trait ϑ. MLR implies two stochastic ordering (SO) properties, denoted SOM and SOL, which are both weaker than MLR, but very useful for measurement with IRT models. Therefore, these SO properties are investigated for a broader class of IRT models for which the MLR property does not hold.

In this study, first a taxonomy is given for nonparametric and parametric models for polytomous items based on the hierarchical relationship between the models. Next, it is investigated which models have the MLR property and which have the SO properties. It is shown that all models in the taxonomy possess the SOM property. However, counterexamples illustrate that many models do not, in general, possess the even more useful SOL property.

Keywords

monotone likelihood rationonparametric IRT modelsparametric IRT modelspolytomous IRT modelsstochastic ordering
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 331 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Hemker's research was supported by the Netherlands Research Council, Grant 575-67-034. Junker's research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, Grant CA54852, and by the National Science Foundation, Grant DMS-94.04438.

References

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. L., & Junker, B. W. (1995). Tail-measurability in monotone latent variable models. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google 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, 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, D. A. (1988). Two group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika, 53, 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W., Junker, B. W. (1996). Polytomous IRT models and monotone likelihood ratio of the total score. Psychometrika, 61, 679–693.CrossRefGoogle 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
Huynh, H. (1994). A new proof for monotone likelihood ratio for the sum of independent bernoulli random variables. Psychometrika, 59, 77–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B. W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood-based ability estimation for polytomous items. Psychometrika, 56, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B. W. (1993). Conditional association, essential independence and monotone unidimensional item response models. The Annals of Statistics, 21, 1359–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B. W., & Ellis, J. L. (1995). A characterization of monotone unidimensional latent variable models (CMU Statistics Department Tech. Rep. #614). Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1959). Testing statistical hypotheses, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Drasgow, F., Mead, A. D. (1994). Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1995). Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis, New York/Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I. W. (1982). Mokken scaling revisited. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 3(8), 145–164.Google Scholar
Molenaar, I. W. (1997). Nonparametric models for polytomous responses. In van der Linden, W. J., Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 369–380). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1985). Comparing distributions of item responses for two groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.Google Scholar
Samejima, F. (1972). A general model for free-response data. Psychometrika Monograph, No 18.Google Scholar
Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar