Linear Factor Analytic Thurstonian Forced-Choice Models: Current Status and Issues

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Educational and Psychological Measurement Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1177/00131644231205011
Markus T. Jansen, Ralf Schulze
{"title":"Linear Factor Analytic Thurstonian Forced-Choice Models: Current Status and Issues","authors":"Markus T. Jansen, Ralf Schulze","doi":"10.1177/00131644231205011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thurstonian forced-choice modeling is considered to be a powerful new tool to estimate item and person parameters while simultaneously testing the model fit. This assessment approach is associated with the aim of reducing faking and other response tendencies that plague traditional self-report trait assessments. As a result of major recent methodological developments, the estimation of normative trait scores has become possible in addition to the computation of only ipsative scores. This opened up the important possibility of comparisons between individuals with forced-choice assessment procedures. With item response theory (IRT) methods, a multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) format has also been proposed to estimate individual scores. Customarily, items to assess different traits are presented in blocks, often triplets, in applications of the MFC, which is an efficient form of item presentation but also a simplification of the original models. The present study provides a comprehensive review of the present status of Thurstonian forced-choice models and their variants. Critical features of the current models, especially the block models, are identified and discussed. It is concluded that MFC modeling with item blocks is highly problematic and yields biased results. In particular, the often-recommended presentation of blocks with items that are keyed in different directions of a trait proves to be counterproductive considering the goal to reduce response tendencies. The consequences and implications of the highlighted issues are further discussed.","PeriodicalId":11502,"journal":{"name":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational and Psychological Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231205011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Thurstonian forced-choice modeling is considered to be a powerful new tool to estimate item and person parameters while simultaneously testing the model fit. This assessment approach is associated with the aim of reducing faking and other response tendencies that plague traditional self-report trait assessments. As a result of major recent methodological developments, the estimation of normative trait scores has become possible in addition to the computation of only ipsative scores. This opened up the important possibility of comparisons between individuals with forced-choice assessment procedures. With item response theory (IRT) methods, a multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) format has also been proposed to estimate individual scores. Customarily, items to assess different traits are presented in blocks, often triplets, in applications of the MFC, which is an efficient form of item presentation but also a simplification of the original models. The present study provides a comprehensive review of the present status of Thurstonian forced-choice models and their variants. Critical features of the current models, especially the block models, are identified and discussed. It is concluded that MFC modeling with item blocks is highly problematic and yields biased results. In particular, the often-recommended presentation of blocks with items that are keyed in different directions of a trait proves to be counterproductive considering the goal to reduce response tendencies. The consequences and implications of the highlighted issues are further 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
线性因子分析瑟斯顿强迫选择模型:现状与问题
瑟斯顿强迫选择建模被认为是一种强大的新工具,可以估计项目和人的参数,同时测试模型的拟合。这种评估方法的目的是减少欺骗和其他困扰传统自我报告特质评估的反应倾向。由于最近主要的方法发展,除了计算负性分数之外,对规范性特征分数的估计已经成为可能。这就提供了一种重要的可能性,可以对具有强制选择评估程序的个人进行比较。利用项目反应理论(IRT)方法,提出了一种多维强迫选择(MFC)格式来估计个体得分。通常,在MFC应用中,评估不同特征的项目以块(通常是三元组)的形式呈现,这是一种有效的项目呈现形式,也是对原始模型的简化。本研究对瑟斯顿强迫选择模型及其变体的现状进行了全面的回顾。对当前模型,特别是块模型的关键特征进行了识别和讨论。结论是,使用项目块的MFC建模是非常有问题的,并且产生有偏差的结果。特别是,考虑到减少反应倾向的目标,经常推荐的用不同方向键的项目展示块被证明是适得其反的。进一步讨论了突出问题的后果和影响。
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
Discriminant Validity of Interval Response Formats: Investigating the Dimensional Structure of Interval Widths. Novick Meets Bayes: Improving the Assessment of Individual Students in Educational Practice and Research by Capitalizing on Assessors' Prior Beliefs. Differential Item Functioning Effect Size Use for Validity Information. Optimal Number of Replications for Obtaining Stable Dynamic Fit Index Cutoffs. Invariance: What Does Measurement Invariance Allow Us to Claim?
×
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:481959085
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