Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T02:04:10.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tail-Measurability in Monotone Latent Variable Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jules L. Ellis  and
Brian W. Junker
Jules L. Ellis*
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen
Brian W. Junker
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Requests for reprints should be send to Jules L. Ellis, Department of Mathematical Psychology, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider latent variable models for an infinite sequence (or universe) of manifest (observable) variables that may be discrete, continuous or some combination of these. The main theorem is a general characterization by empirical conditions of when it is possible to construct latent variable models that satisfy unidimensionality, monotonicity, conditional independence, and tail-measurability. Tail-measurability means that the latent variable can be estimated consistently from the sequence of manifest variables even though an arbitrary finite subsequence has been removed. The characterizing, necessary and sufficient, conditions that the manifest variables must satisfy for these models are conditional association and vanishing conditional dependence (as one conditions upon successively more other manifest variables). Our main theorem considerably generalizes and sharpens earlier results of Ellis and van den Wollenberg (1993), Holland and Rosenbaum (1986), and Junker (1993). It is also related to the work of Stout (1990).

The main theorem is preceded by many results for latent variable models in general—not necessarily unidimensional and monotone. They pertain to the uniqueness of latent variables and are connected with the conditional independence theorem of Suppes and Zanotti (1981). We discuss new definitions of the concepts of “true-score” and “subpopulation,” which generalize these notions from the “stochastic subject,” “random sampling,” and “domain sampling” formulations of latent variable models (e.g., Holland, 1990; Lord & Novick, 1968). These definitions do not require the a priori specification of a latent variable model.

Keywords

unidimensionalitylatent variable modelstail-measurableconditional independenceconditional associationmonotonicityvanishing conditional dependenceconsistencytrue-score variablesubpopulationsubtail-measurable
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 495 - 523
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

The authors made equivalent contributions to the results of this article. Ellis' research was supported by the Dutch Interuniversitary Graduate School of Psychometrics and Sociometrics. Junker's research was supported by ONR Grant N00014-87-K-0277, NIMH Grant MH15758, and a Carnegie Mellon University Faculty Development Grant. In addition Junker would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information during his visit to the University of Nijmegen in August 5–10, 1993.

References

Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billingsley, P. (1986). Probability and measure, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (1989). Multigroup comparisons and the assessment of equivalent construct validity across groups: Methodological and substantive issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 503–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. L. (1993). Subpopulation invariance of patterns in covariance matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 46, 231–254.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, 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esary, J. D., Proschan, F., Walkup, D. W. (1967). Association of random variables, with applications. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38, 1466–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G. H. (1974). Einfuhrung in die Theorie psychologischer Tests [Introduction to mental test theory], Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. H. (1987). Applying the principles of specific objectivity and of generalizability to the measurement of change. Psychometrika, 52, 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G. H. (1995). Derivations of the Rasch model. In Fischer, G. H., Molenaar, I. W. (Eds.), Rasch models. Foundations, recent developments and applications (pp. 15–38). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Grayson, D. A. (1988). Two-group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika, 53, 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, D. A. (1990). Selection effects and unidimensionality in item response theory. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttman, L. (1953). Image theory for the structure of quantitative variates. Psychometrika, 18, 227–296.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 monotonc latent variable models. The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523–1543.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. Annals of Statistics, 21, 1359–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B. W., Ellis, J. L. (1997). A characterization of monotone unidimensional latent variable models. Annals of Statistics, 25, 1327–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H., Caffrey, J. (1965). Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingman, J. F. C. (1978). Uses of exchangeability. Annals of Probability, 6, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1959). Latent structure analysis. In Koch, S. (Eds.), Psychology: A study of science, Vol. 3 (pp. 476–543). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1986). Testing statistical hypotheses, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1977). The indeterminacy of components and the definition of common factors. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 30, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P., Mulaik, S. A. (1979). Determinacy of common factors: A nontechnical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, W., Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale-analysis, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mood, A. M., Graybill, F. A., Boes, D. C. (1974). Introduction to the theory of statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mulaik, S. A., McDonald, R. P. (1978). The effect of additional variables on factor indeterminacy in models with a single common factor. Psychometrika, 43, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. (1991). Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika, 56, 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen: Nielson & Lydiche.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1977). On specific objectivity: An attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. In Blegvad, M. (Eds.), The Danish yearbook of philosophy, Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskam, E. E., Jansen, P. G. W. (1984). A new derivation of the Rasch model. In Degreef, E., Van Buggenhaut, J. (Eds.), Trends in mathematical psychology, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rozenboom, W. W. (1988). Factor indeterminacy: The saga continues. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schervish, M. J. (1995). Theory of statistics, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N., Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sijtsma, K. (1988). Contributions to Mokken's nonparametric item response theory, Amsterdam: Free University Press.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1979). Factor indeterminacy in the 1930's and the 1970's some interesting parallels. Psychometrika, 44, 157–167.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
Suppes, P., Zanotti, M. (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible?. Synthese, 48, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1957). Multiple-factor analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R. (1966). Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31, 279–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar