Prior to discussing and challenging two criticisms on coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}, the well-known lower bound to test-score reliability, we discuss classical test theory and the theory of coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}. The first criticism expressed in the psychometrics literature is that coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} is only useful when the model of essential $\tau$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\tau $$\end{document}-equivalence is consistent with the item-score data. Because this model is highly restrictive, coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} is smaller than test-score reliability and one should not use it. We argue that lower bounds are useful when they assess product quality features, such as a test-score’s reliability. The second criticism expressed is that coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} incorrectly ignores correlated errors. If correlated errors would enter the computation of coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}, theoretical values of coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} could be greater than the test-score reliability. Because quality measures that are systematically too high are undesirable, critics dismiss coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document}. We argue that introducing correlated errors is inconsistent with the derivation of the lower bound theorem and that the properties of coefficient $\alpha$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\alpha $$\end{document} remain intact when data contain correlated errors.

Marginal maximum likelihood (MML) estimation is the preferred approach to fitting item response theory models in psychometrics due to the MML estimator’s consistency, normality, and efficiency as the sample size tends to infinity. However, state-of-the-art MML estimation procedures such as the Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro (MH-RM) algorithm as well as approximate MML estimation procedures such as variational inference (VI) are computationally time-consuming when the sample size and the number of latent factors are very large. In this work, we investigate a deep learning-based VI algorithm for exploratory item factor analysis (IFA) that is computationally fast even in large data sets with many latent factors. The proposed approach applies a deep artificial neural network model called an importance-weighted autoencoder (IWAE) for exploratory IFA. The IWAE approximates the MML estimator using an importance sampling technique wherein increasing the number of importance-weighted (IW) samples drawn during fitting improves the approximation, typically at the cost of decreased computational efficiency. We provide a real data application that recovers results aligning with psychological theory across random starts. Via simulation studies, we show that the IWAE yields more accurate estimates as either the sample size or the number of IW samples increases (although factor correlation and intercepts estimates exhibit some bias) and obtains similar results to MH-RM in less time. Our simulations also suggest that the proposed approach performs similarly to and is potentially faster than constrained joint maximum likelihood estimation, a fast procedure that is consistent when the sample size and the number of items simultaneously tend to infinity.

Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis is an important step in establishing the validity of measurements. Most traditional methods for DIF analysis use an item-by-item strategy via anchor items that are assumed DIF-free. If anchor items are flawed, these methods will yield misleading results due to biased scales. In this article, based on the fact that the item’s relative change of difficulty difference (RCD) does not depend on the mean ability of individual groups, a new DIF detection method (RCD-DIF) is proposed by comparing the observed differences against those with simulated data that are known DIF-free. The RCD-DIF method consists of a D-QQ (quantile quantile) plot that permits the identification of internal references points (similar to anchor items), a RCD-QQ plot that facilitates visual examination of DIF, and a RCD graphical test that synchronizes DIF analysis at the test level with that at the item level via confidence intervals on individual items. The RCD procedure visually reveals the overall pattern of DIF in the test and the size of DIF for each item and is expected to work properly even when the majority of the items possess DIF and the DIF pattern is unbalanced. Results of two simulation studies indicate that the RCD graphical test has Type I error rate comparable to those of existing methods but with greater power.

Sijtsma and Pfadt (Psychometrika, 2021) provide a wide-ranging defense for the use of coefficient alpha. Alpha is practical and useful when its limitations are acceptable. This paper discusses several methodologies for reliability, some new here, that go beyond alpha and were not emphasized by Sijtsma and Pfadt. Bentler’s (Psychometrika 33:335–345, 1968. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289328) combined factor analysis (FA) and classical test theory (CTT) model. FACTT provides a key conceptual foundation.

Diagnostic classification models (DCMs) are widely used for providing fine-grained classification of a multidimensional collection of discrete attributes. The application of DCMs requires the specification of the latent structure in what is known as the $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document} matrix. Expert-specified $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document} matrices might be biased and result in incorrect diagnostic classifications, so a critical issue is developing methods to estimate $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document} in order to infer the relationship between latent attributes and items. Existing exploratory methods for estimating $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document} must pre-specify the number of attributes, K. We present a Bayesian framework to jointly infer the number of attributes K and the elements of $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document}. We propose the crimp sampling algorithm to transit between different dimensions of K and estimate the underlying $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document} and model parameters while enforcing model identifiability constraints. We also adapt the Indian buffet process and reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate $\mathit{Q}$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\varvec{Q}}$$\end{document}. We report evidence that the crimp sampler performs the best among the three methods. We apply the developed methodology to two data sets and discuss the implications of the findings for future research.

Classic item response models assume that all items with the same difficulty have the same response probability among all respondents with the same ability. These assumptions, however, may very well be violated in practice, and it is not straightforward to assess whether these assumptions are violated, because neither the abilities of respondents nor the difficulties of items are observed. An example is an educational assessment where unobserved heterogeneity is present, arising from unobserved variables such as cultural background and upbringing of students, the quality of mentorship and other forms of emotional and professional support received by students, and other unobserved variables that may affect response probabilities. To address such violations of assumptions, we introduce a novel latent space model which assumes that both items and respondents are embedded in an unobserved metric space, with the probability of a correct response decreasing as a function of the distance between the respondent’s and the item’s position in the latent space. The resulting latent space approach provides an interaction map that represents interactions of respondents and items, and helps derive insightful diagnostic information on items as well as respondents. In practice, such interaction maps enable teachers to detect students from underrepresented groups who need more support than other students. We provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed latent space approach, along with simulation results.

Several methods used to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures are presented, including effect size estimation. A summary of factors that may affect DIF detection and challenges encountered in PROMIS DIF analyses, e.g., anchor item selection, is provided. An issue in PROMIS was the potential for inadequately modeled multidimensionality to result in false DIF detection. Section 1 is a presentation of the unidimensional models used by most PROMIS investigators for DIF detection, as well as their multidimensional expansions. Section 2 is an illustration that builds on previous unidimensional analyses of depression and anxiety short-forms to examine DIF detection using a multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) model. The Item Response Theory-Log-likelihood Ratio Test (IRT-LRT) method was used for a real data illustration with gender as the grouping variable. The IRT-LRT DIF detection method is a flexible approach to handle group differences in trait distributions, known as impact in the DIF literature, and was studied with both real data and in simulations to compare the performance of the IRT-LRT method within the unidimensional IRT (UIRT) and MIRT contexts. Additionally, different effect size measures were compared for the data presented in Section 2. A finding from the real data illustration was that using the IRT-LRT method within a MIRT context resulted in more flagged items as compared to using the IRT-LRT method within a UIRT context. The simulations provided some evidence that while unidimensional and multidimensional approaches were similar in terms of Type I error rates, power for DIF detection was greater for the multidimensional approach. Effect size measures presented in Section 1 and applied in Section 2 varied in terms of estimation methods, choice of density function, methods of equating, and anchor item selection. Despite these differences, there was considerable consistency in results, especially for the items showing the largest values. Future work is needed to examine DIF detection in the context of polytomous, multidimensional data. PROMIS standards included incorporation of effect size measures in determining salient DIF. Integrated methods for examining effect size measures in the context of IRT-based DIF detection procedures are still in early stages of development.

There recently has been growing interest in the study of psychological and neurological processes at an individual level. One goal in such endeavors is to construct person-specific dynamic assessments using time series techniques such as Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models. However, two problems exist with current VAR specifications: (1) VAR models are restricted in that contemporaneous relations are typically modeled either as undirected relations among residuals or directed relations among observed variables, but not both; (2) current estimation frameworks are limited by the reliance on stepwise model building procedures. This study adopts a new modeling approach. We first extended the current unified SEM (uSEM) framework, a widely used structural VAR model, to a hybrid representation (i.e., “huSEM”) to include both undirected and directed contemporaneous effects, and then replaced the stepwise modeling with a LASSO-type regularization for a global search of the optimal sparse model. Our simulation study showed that regularized huSEM performed uniformly the best over alternative VAR representations and/or modeling approaches, with respect to accurately recovering the presence and directionality of hybrid relations and reliably removing false relations when the data are generated to have two types of contemporaneous relations. The present study to our knowledge is the first application of the recently developed regularized SEM technique to the estimation of huSEM, which points to a promising future for statistical learning in psychometric models.

Penalized factor analysis is an efficient technique that produces a factor loading matrix with many zero elements thanks to the introduction of sparsity-inducing penalties within the estimation process. However, sparse solutions and stable model selection procedures are only possible if the employed penalty is non-differentiable, which poses certain theoretical and computational challenges. This article proposes a general penalized likelihood-based estimation approach for single- and multiple-group factor analysis models. The framework builds upon differentiable approximations of non-differentiable penalties, a theoretically founded definition of degrees of freedom, and an algorithm with integrated automatic multiple tuning parameter selection that exploits second-order analytical derivative information. The proposed approach is evaluated in two simulation studies and illustrated using a real data set. All the necessary routines are integrated into the R package penfa.

It is argued that the generalizability theory interpretation of coefficient alpha is important. In this interpretation, alpha is a slightly biased but consistent estimate for the coefficient of generalizability in a subjects x items design where both subjects and items are randomly sampled. This interpretation is based on the “domain sampling” true scores. It is argued that these true scores have a more solid empirical basis than the true scores of Lord and Novick (1968), which are based on “stochastic subjects” (Holland, 1990), while only a single observation is available for each within-subject distribution. Therefore, the generalizability interpretation of coefficient alpha is to be preferred, unless the true scores can be defined by a latent variable model that has undisputed empirical validity for the test and that is sufficiently restrictive to entail a consistent estimate of the reliability—as, for example, McDonald’s omega. If this model implies that the items are essentially tau-equivalent, both the generalizability and the reliability interpretation of alpha can be defensible.

In response to the target article by Teresi et al. (2021), we explain why the article is useful and we also present a different approach. An alternative category of differential item functioning (DIF) is presented with a corresponding way of modeling DIF, based on random person and random item effects and explanatory covariates.

We propose a two-step procedure to estimate structural equation models (SEMs). In a first step, the latent variable is replaced by its conditional expectation given the observed data. This conditional expectation is estimated using a James–Stein type shrinkage estimator. The second step consists of regressing the dependent variables on this shrinkage estimator. In addition to linear SEMs, we also derive shrinkage estimators to estimate polynomials. We empirically demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method via simulation and contrast the proposed estimator with ML and MIIV estimators under a limited number of simulation scenarios. We illustrate the method on a case study.

The likelihood ratio test is widely used in exploratory factor analysis to assess the model fit and determine the number of latent factors. Despite its popularity and clear statistical rationale, researchers have found that when the dimension of the response data is large compared to the sample size, the classical Chi-square approximation of the likelihood ratio test statistic often fails. Theoretically, it has been an open problem when such a phenomenon happens as the dimension of data increases; practically, the effect of high dimensionality is less examined in exploratory factor analysis, and there lacks a clear statistical guideline on the validity of the conventional Chi-square approximation. To address this problem, we investigate the failure of the Chi-square approximation of the likelihood ratio test in high-dimensional exploratory factor analysis and derive the necessary and sufficient condition to ensure the validity of the Chi-square approximation. The results yield simple quantitative guidelines to check in practice and would also provide useful statistical insights into the practice of exploratory factor analysis.

Sijtsma and Pfadt (2021) published a thought-provoking article on coefficient alpha. I make the following arguments against their work. 1) Kuder and Richardson (1937) deserve more credit for coefficient alpha than Cronbach (1951). 2) We should distinguish between the definition of reliability and its meaning. 3) We should be wary of overfitting in the use of FA reliability. 4) Our primary concern is to obtain accurate reliability estimates rather than conservative estimates. 5) Several reliability estimators, such as ${\lambda }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\lambda _{2}$$\end{document}, ${\mu }_2$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\mu _{2}$$\end{document}, congeneric reliability and the Gilmer-Feldt coefficient are more accurate than coefficient alpha. 6) The name omega should not be used to refer to a specific reliability estimator.

The psychometric process used to establish a relationship between the scores of two (or more) instruments is generically referred to as linking. When two instruments with the same content and statistical test specifications are linked, these instruments are said to be equated. Linking and equating procedures have long been used for practical benefit in educational testing. In recent years, health outcome researchers have increasingly applied linking techniques to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. However, these applications have some noteworthy purposes and associated methodological questions. Purposes for linking health outcomes include the harmonization of data across studies or settings (enabling increased power in hypothesis testing), the aggregation of summed score data by means of score crosswalk tables, and score conversion in clinical settings where new instruments are introduced, but an interpretable connection to historical data is needed. When two PRO instruments are linked, assumptions for equating are typically not met and the extent to which those assumptions are violated becomes a decision point around how (and whether) to proceed with linking. We demonstrate multiple linking procedures—equipercentile, unidimensional IRT calibration, and calibrated projection—with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression bank and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We validate this link across two samples and simulate different instrument correlation levels to provide guidance around which linking method is preferred. Finally, we discuss some remaining issues and directions for psychometric research in linking PRO instruments.

In this paper, we consider the Rasch model and suggest novel point estimators and confidence intervals for the ability parameter. They are based on a proposed confidence distribution (CD) whose construction has required to overcome some difficulties essentially due to the discrete nature of the model. When the number of items is large, the computations due to the combinatorics involved become heavy, and thus, we provide first- and second-order approximations of the CD. Simulation studies show the good behavior of our estimators and intervals when compared with those obtained through other standard frequentist and weakly informative Bayesian procedures. Finally, using the expansion of the expected length of the suggested interval, we are able to identify reasonable values of the sample size which lead to a desired length of the interval.

In this rejoinder, we examine some of the issues Peter Bentler, Eunseong Cho, and Jules Ellis raise. We suggest a methodological solid way to construct a test indicating that the importance of the particular reliability method used is minor, and we discuss future topics in reliability research.

Person fit statistics are frequently used to detect aberrant behavior when assuming an item response model generated the data. A common statistic, $l_z$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$l_z$$\end{document}, has been shown in previous studies to perform well under a myriad of conditions. However, it is well-known that $l_z$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$l_z$$\end{document} does not follow a standard normal distribution when using an estimated latent trait. As a result, corrections of $l_z$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$l_z$$\end{document}, called $l_z^{\ast }$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$l_z^*$$\end{document}, have been proposed in the literature for specific item response models. We propose a more general correction that is applicable to many types of data, namely survey or tests with multiple item types and underlying latent constructs, which subsumes previous work done by others. In addition, we provide corrections for multiple estimators of $\theta$\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\theta $$\end{document}, the latent trait, including MLE, MAP and WLE. We provide analytical derivations that justifies our proposed correction, as well as simulation studies to examine the performance of the proposed correction with finite test lengths. An applied example is also provided to demonstrate proof of concept. We conclude with recommendations for practitioners when the asymptotic correction works well under different conditions and also future directions.