因子分析中的潜在变量估计与项目反应理论

D. Thissen, Anne Thissen-Roe
{"title":"因子分析中的潜在变量估计与项目反应理论","authors":"D. Thissen, Anne Thissen-Roe","doi":"10.59863/optz4045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay sketches the historical development of latent variable scoring procedures in the item response theory (IRT) and factor analysis literatures, observing that the most commonly used score estimates in both traditions are fundamentally the same; only methods of calculation differ. Different procedures have been used to derive factor score estimates and latent variable estimates in IRT, and different computational procedures have been the result. Due to differences in the context of score usage, challenges have led to different solutions in the IRT and factor analytic traditions. The needs for bias corrections differ, as do the corrections that have been proposed. While the standard factor analysis model has naturally Gaussian likelihoods, IRT does not, but in IRT normal approximations have been used in various contexts to make the IRT computations more like those of factor analysis. Finally, factor analysis alone has been the home of decades of controversy over factor score indeterminacy, while IRT has not, even though the scores in question are the same. That is an artifact of history and the ways the models have been written in the IRT and factor analytic literatures. IRT has never been plagued with questions of indeterminacy, which helps to clarify the position that what is referred to as indeterminacy is not a problem.","PeriodicalId":72586,"journal":{"name":"Chinese/English journal of educational measurement and evaluation","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latent Variable Estimation in Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory\",\"authors\":\"D. Thissen, Anne Thissen-Roe\",\"doi\":\"10.59863/optz4045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay sketches the historical development of latent variable scoring procedures in the item response theory (IRT) and factor analysis literatures, observing that the most commonly used score estimates in both traditions are fundamentally the same; only methods of calculation differ. Different procedures have been used to derive factor score estimates and latent variable estimates in IRT, and different computational procedures have been the result. Due to differences in the context of score usage, challenges have led to different solutions in the IRT and factor analytic traditions. The needs for bias corrections differ, as do the corrections that have been proposed. While the standard factor analysis model has naturally Gaussian likelihoods, IRT does not, but in IRT normal approximations have been used in various contexts to make the IRT computations more like those of factor analysis. Finally, factor analysis alone has been the home of decades of controversy over factor score indeterminacy, while IRT has not, even though the scores in question are the same. That is an artifact of history and the ways the models have been written in the IRT and factor analytic literatures. IRT has never been plagued with questions of indeterminacy, which helps to clarify the position that what is referred to as indeterminacy is not a problem.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese/English journal of educational measurement and evaluation\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese/English journal of educational measurement and evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59863/optz4045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese/English journal of educational measurement and evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59863/optz4045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文概述了潜在变量计分程序在项目反应理论(IRT)和因子分析文献中的历史发展,发现这两种传统中最常用的计分方法基本相同;只有计算方法不同。在IRT中,使用了不同的程序来推导因子得分估计和潜在变量估计,并且得到了不同的计算程序。由于分数使用背景的差异,挑战导致了IRT和因素分析传统中不同的解决方案。对偏差校正的需求是不同的,所提出的校正也是不同的。虽然标准因子分析模型具有自然的高斯似然,但IRT没有,但在IRT中,正态近似已在各种情况下使用,使IRT计算更像因子分析的计算。最后,几十年来,因子分析本身一直是因子分数不确定性争议的焦点,而IRT则没有,尽管有争议的分数是相同的。这是历史的产物,也是IRT和因子分析文献中所写模型的方式。IRT从未受到不确定性问题的困扰,这有助于澄清所谓的不确定性不是问题的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Latent Variable Estimation in Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory
This essay sketches the historical development of latent variable scoring procedures in the item response theory (IRT) and factor analysis literatures, observing that the most commonly used score estimates in both traditions are fundamentally the same; only methods of calculation differ. Different procedures have been used to derive factor score estimates and latent variable estimates in IRT, and different computational procedures have been the result. Due to differences in the context of score usage, challenges have led to different solutions in the IRT and factor analytic traditions. The needs for bias corrections differ, as do the corrections that have been proposed. While the standard factor analysis model has naturally Gaussian likelihoods, IRT does not, but in IRT normal approximations have been used in various contexts to make the IRT computations more like those of factor analysis. Finally, factor analysis alone has been the home of decades of controversy over factor score indeterminacy, while IRT has not, even though the scores in question are the same. That is an artifact of history and the ways the models have been written in the IRT and factor analytic literatures. IRT has never been plagued with questions of indeterminacy, which helps to clarify the position that what is referred to as indeterminacy is not a problem.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Non-Parametric CD-CAT Item Selection Strategy and Termination Rules Based on Binary Search Algorithm 基于二分搜索算法构建的非参数CD-CAT选题策略及终止规则 An Efficient Non-parametric Item Selection Method for Polytomous Scoring CD-CAT ETS Skills Taxonomy 一种高效的且适用于多级计分CD-CAT非参数选题方法
×
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