British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology最新文献

The analysis of multiple bivariate correlations is often carried out by conducting simple tests to check whether each of them is significantly different from zero. In addition, pairwise differences are often judged by eye or by comparing the p-values of the individual tests of significance despite the existence of statistical tests for differences between correlations. This paper uses simulation methods to assess the accuracy (empirical Type I error rate), power, and robustness of 10 tests designed to check the significance of the difference between two dependent correlations with overlapping variables (i.e., the correlation between X₁ and Y and the correlation between X₂ and Y). Five of the tests turned out to be inadvisable because their empirical Type I error rates under normality differ greatly from the nominal alpha level of .05 either across the board or within certain sub-ranges of the parameter space. The remaining five tests were acceptable and their merits were similar in terms of all comparison criteria, although none of them was robust across all forms of non-normality explored in the study. Practical recommendations are given for the choice of a statistical test to compare dependent correlations with overlapping variables.

Exploratory cognitive diagnosis models have been widely used in psychology, education and other fields. This paper focuses on determining the number of attributes in a widely used cognitive diagnosis model, the GDINA model. Under some conditions of cognitive diagnosis models, we prove that there exists a special structure for the covariance matrix of observed data. Due to the special structure of the covariance matrix, an estimator based on eigen-decomposition is proposed for the number of attributes for the GDINA model. The performance of the proposed estimator is verified by simulation studies. Finally, the proposed estimator is applied to two real data sets Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English (ECPE) and Big Five Personality (BFP).

Computerized adaptive testing for cognitive diagnosis (CD-CAT) achieves remarkable estimation efficiency and accuracy by adaptively selecting and then administering items tailored to each examinee. The process of item selection stands as a pivotal component of a CD-CAT algorithm, with various methods having been developed for binary responses. However, multiple-choice (MC) items, an important item type that allows for the extraction of richer diagnostic information from incorrect answers, have been underemphasized. Currently, the Jensen–Shannon divergence (JSD) index introduced by Yigit et al. (Applied Psychological Measurement, 2019, 43, 388) is the only item selection method exclusively designed for MC items. However, the JSD index requires a large sample to calibrate item parameters, which may be infeasible when there is only a small or no calibration sample. To bridge this gap, the study first proposes a nonparametric item selection method for MC items (MC-NPS) by implementing novel discrimination power that measures an item's ability to effectively distinguish among different attribute profiles. A Q-optimal procedure for MC items is also developed to improve the classification during the initial phase of a CD-CAT algorithm. The effectiveness and efficiency of the two proposed algorithms were confirmed by simulation studies.

Oral reading fluency (ORF) assessments are commonly used to screen at-risk readers and evaluate interventions' effectiveness as curriculum-based measurements. Similar to the standard practice in item response theory (IRT), calibrated passage parameter estimates are currently used as if they were population values in model-based ORF scoring. However, calibration errors that are unaccounted for may bias ORF score estimates and, in particular, lead to underestimated standard errors (SEs) of ORF scores. Therefore, we consider an approach that incorporates the calibration errors in latent variable scores. We further derive the SEs of ORF scores based on the delta method to incorporate the calibration uncertainty. We conduct a simulation study to evaluate the recovery of point estimates and SEs of latent variable scores and ORF scores in various simulated conditions. Results suggest that ignoring calibration errors leads to underestimated latent variable score SEs and ORF score SEs, especially when the calibration sample is small.

Pairwise likelihood is a limited-information method widely used to estimate latent variable models, including factor analysis of categorical data. It can often avoid evaluating high-dimensional integrals and, thus, is computationally more efficient than relying on the full likelihood. Despite its computational advantage, the pairwise likelihood approach can still be demanding for large-scale problems that involve many observed variables. We tackle this challenge by employing an approximation of the pairwise likelihood estimator, which is derived from an optimization procedure relying on stochastic gradients. The stochastic gradients are constructed by subsampling the pairwise log-likelihood contributions, for which the subsampling scheme controls the per-iteration computational complexity. The stochastic estimator is shown to be asymptotically equivalent to the pairwise likelihood one. However, finite-sample performance can be improved by compounding the sampling variability of the data with the uncertainty introduced by the subsampling scheme. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed method using simulation studies and two real data applications.

In psychological studies, multivariate outcomes measured on the same individuals are often encountered. Effects originating from these outcomes are consequently dependent. Multivariate meta-analysis examines the relationships of multivariate outcomes by estimating the mean effects and their variance–covariance matrices from series of primary studies. In this paper we discuss a unified modelling framework for multivariate meta-analysis that also incorporates measurement error corrections. We focus on two types of effect sizes, standardized mean differences (d) and correlations (r), that are common in psychological studies. Using generalized least squares estimation, we outline estimated mean vectors and variance–covariance matrices for d and r that are corrected for measurement error. Given the burgeoning research involving multivariate outcomes, and the largely overlooked ramifications of measurement error, we advocate addressing measurement error while conducting multivariate meta-analysis to enhance the replicability of psychological research.

Q-matrix is an important component of most cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs); however, it mainly relies on subject matter experts' judgements in empirical studies, which introduces the possibility of misspecified q-entries. To address this, statistical Q-matrix validation methods have been proposed to aid experts' judgement. A few of these methods, including the multiple logistic regression-based (MLR-B) method and the Hull method, can be applied to general CDMs, but they are either time-consuming or lack accuracy under certain conditions. In this study, we combine the L₁ regularization and MLR model to validate the Q-matrix. Specifically, an L₁ penalty term is imposed on the log-likelihood of the MLR model to select the necessary attributes for each item. A simulation study with various factors was conducted to examine the performance of the new method against the two existing methods. The results show that the regularized MLR-B method (a) produces the highest Q-matrix recovery rate (QRR) and true positive rate (TPR) for most conditions, especially with a small sample size; (b) yields a slightly higher true negative rate (TNR) than either the MLR-B or the Hull method for most conditions; and (c) requires less computation time than the MLR-B method and similar computation time as the Hull method. A real data set is analysed for illustration purposes.

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the development of person-fit statistics for tests with polytomous items. Some of the most popular person-fit statistics for such tests belong to the class of standardized person-fit statistics, $��T�$, that is assumed to have a standard normal null distribution. However, this distribution only holds when (a) the true ability parameter is known and (b) an infinite number of items are available. In practice, both conditions are violated, and the quality of person-fit results is expected to deteriorate. In this paper, we propose three new corrections for $��T�$ that simultaneously account for the use of an estimated ability parameter and the use of a finite number of items. The three new corrections are direct extensions of those that were developed by Gorney et al. (Psychometrika, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-024-09960-x) for tests with only dichotomous items. Our simulation study reveals that the three new corrections tend to outperform not only the original statistic $��T�$ but also an existing correction for $��T�$ proposed by Sinharay (Psychometrika, 2016, 81, 992). Therefore, the new corrections appear to be promising tools for assessing person fit in tests with polytomous items.

In this study we introduce an innovative mathematical and statistical framework for the analysis of motion energy dynamics in psychotherapy sessions. Our method combines motion energy dynamics with coupled linear ordinary differential equations and a measurement error model, contributing new clinical parameters to enhance psychotherapy research. Our approach transforms raw motion energy data into an interpretable account of therapist–patient interactions, providing novel insights into the dynamics of these interactions. A key aspect of our framework is the development of a new measure of synchrony between the motion energies of therapists and patients, which holds significant clinical and theoretical value in psychotherapy. The practical applicability and effectiveness of our modelling and estimation framework are demonstrated through the analysis of real session data. This work advances the quantitative analysis of motion dynamics in psychotherapy, offering important implications for future research and therapeutic practice.

Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is one of the commonly used tools for assessing the quality of ratings from multiple raters. However, applicant selection procedures based on ratings from multiple raters usually result in a binary outcome; the applicant is either selected or not. This final outcome is not considered in IRR, which instead focuses on the ratings of the individual subjects or objects. We outline the connection between the ratings' measurement model (used for IRR) and a binary classification framework. We develop a simple way of approximating the probability of correctly selecting the best applicants which allows us to compute error probabilities of the selection procedure (i.e., false positive and false negative rate) or their lower bounds. We draw connections between the IRR and the binary classification metrics, showing that binary classification metrics depend solely on the IRR coefficient and proportion of selected applicants. We assess the performance of the approximation in a simulation study and apply it in an example comparing the reliability of multiple grant peer review selection procedures. We also discuss other possible uses of the explored connections in other contexts, such as educational testing, psychological assessment, and health-related measurement, and implement the computations in the R package IRR2FPR.