Detecting Rating Scale Malfunctioning With the Partial Credit Model and Generalized Partial Credit Model.

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-12 DOI:10.1177/00131644221116292
Stefanie A Wind
{"title":"Detecting Rating Scale Malfunctioning With the Partial Credit Model and Generalized Partial Credit Model.","authors":"Stefanie A Wind","doi":"10.1177/00131644221116292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rating scale analysis techniques provide researchers with practical tools for examining the degree to which ordinal rating scales (e.g., Likert-type scales or performance assessment rating scales) function in psychometrically useful ways. When rating scales function as expected, researchers can interpret ratings in the intended direction (i.e., lower ratings mean \"less\" of a construct than higher ratings), distinguish between categories in the scale (i.e., each category reflects a unique level of the construct), and compare ratings across elements of the measurement instrument, such as individual items. Although researchers have used these techniques in a variety of contexts, studies are limited that systematically explore their sensitivity to problematic rating scale characteristics (i.e., \"rating scale malfunctioning\"). I used a real data analysis and a simulation study to systematically explore the sensitivity of rating scale analysis techniques based on two popular polytomous item response theory (IRT) models: the partial credit model (PCM) and the generalized partial credit model (GPCM). Overall, results indicated that both models provide valuable information about rating scale threshold ordering and precision that can help researchers understand how their rating scales are functioning and identify areas for further investigation or revision. However, there were some differences between models in their sensitivity to rating scale malfunctioning in certain conditions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":"83 5","pages":"953-983"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10470161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644221116292","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rating scale analysis techniques provide researchers with practical tools for examining the degree to which ordinal rating scales (e.g., Likert-type scales or performance assessment rating scales) function in psychometrically useful ways. When rating scales function as expected, researchers can interpret ratings in the intended direction (i.e., lower ratings mean "less" of a construct than higher ratings), distinguish between categories in the scale (i.e., each category reflects a unique level of the construct), and compare ratings across elements of the measurement instrument, such as individual items. Although researchers have used these techniques in a variety of contexts, studies are limited that systematically explore their sensitivity to problematic rating scale characteristics (i.e., "rating scale malfunctioning"). I used a real data analysis and a simulation study to systematically explore the sensitivity of rating scale analysis techniques based on two popular polytomous item response theory (IRT) models: the partial credit model (PCM) and the generalized partial credit model (GPCM). Overall, results indicated that both models provide valuable information about rating scale threshold ordering and precision that can help researchers understand how their rating scales are functioning and identify areas for further investigation or revision. However, there were some differences between models in their sensitivity to rating scale malfunctioning in certain conditions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用部分信用模型和广义部分信用模型检测评定量表的故障。
评定量表分析技术为研究人员提供了实用的工具,用于检查有序评定量表(如Likert型量表或绩效评估评定量表)以心理测量学有用的方式发挥作用的程度。当评级量表按预期发挥作用时,研究人员可以按预期方向解释评级(即,较低的评级意味着结构的“更少”,而不是较高的评级),区分量表中的类别(即,每个类别反映了结构的独特水平),并比较测量工具各元素(如单个项目)的评级。尽管研究人员在各种情况下使用了这些技术,但系统地探索他们对有问题的评定量表特征(即“评定量表故障”)的敏感性的研究是有限的。我使用真实数据分析和模拟研究,系统地探讨了基于两个流行的多模项目反应理论(IRT)模型的评级量表分析技术的敏感性:部分信用模型(PCM)和广义部分信用模型。总的来说,结果表明,这两个模型都提供了关于评分量表阈值排序和精度的有价值的信息,可以帮助研究人员了解他们的评分量表是如何运作的,并确定需要进一步调查或修订的领域。然而,在某些条件下,模型对评级量表故障的敏感性存在一些差异。讨论了对研究和实践的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement 医学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Educational and Psychological Measurement (EPM) publishes referred scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues. Theoretical articles address new developments and techniques, and applied articles deal with innovation applications.
期刊最新文献
Consistent Factor Score Regression: A Better Alternative for Uncorrected Factor Score Regression? Empowering Expert Judgment: A Data-Driven Decision Framework for Standard Setting in High-Dimensional and Data-Scarce Assessments. Evaluation of Residual-Based Fit Statistics for Item Response Theory Models in the Presence of Non-Responses. Conditional Reliability of Weighted Test Scores on a Bounded D-Scale. An Experimental Study on the Impact of Survey Stakes on Response Inconsistency in Mixed-Worded Scales.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1