混合格式测试常用IRT模型选择方法的比较

IF 0.6 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/15366367.2021.1878779
Yong Luo
{"title":"混合格式测试常用IRT模型选择方法的比较","authors":"Yong Luo","doi":"10.1080/15366367.2021.1878779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To date, only frequentist model-selection methods have been studied with mixed-format data in the context of IRT model-selection, and it is unknown how popular Bayesian model-selection methods such as DIC, WAIC, and LOO perform. In this study, we present the results of a comprehensive simulation study that compared the performances of eight model-selection methods with mixed-format data to select the correct combination of IRT models. Findings of the simulation study indicate that DIC, WAIC, and LOO had excellent statistical power to choose the correct IRT model combination. They performed comparably with LRT and slightly preferably than AIC, and considerably better than BIC, AICc, and SABIC. In addition, the performances of the three Bayesian methods were more stable than those of AIC and LRT regardless of the sample size and ability distribution. The eight model-selection methods were applied to a real dataset for demonstration purpose.","PeriodicalId":46596,"journal":{"name":"Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives","volume":"47 1","pages":"199 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Common IRT Model-selection Methods with Mixed-Format Tests\",\"authors\":\"Yong Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15366367.2021.1878779\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT To date, only frequentist model-selection methods have been studied with mixed-format data in the context of IRT model-selection, and it is unknown how popular Bayesian model-selection methods such as DIC, WAIC, and LOO perform. In this study, we present the results of a comprehensive simulation study that compared the performances of eight model-selection methods with mixed-format data to select the correct combination of IRT models. Findings of the simulation study indicate that DIC, WAIC, and LOO had excellent statistical power to choose the correct IRT model combination. They performed comparably with LRT and slightly preferably than AIC, and considerably better than BIC, AICc, and SABIC. In addition, the performances of the three Bayesian methods were more stable than those of AIC and LRT regardless of the sample size and ability distribution. The eight model-selection methods were applied to a real dataset for demonstration purpose.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46596,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"199 - 212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2021.1878779\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2021.1878779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

迄今为止,在IRT模型选择的背景下,只有频率主义模型选择方法被研究过,并且尚不清楚流行的贝叶斯模型选择方法(如DIC、WAIC和LOO)的表现如何。在本研究中,我们展示了一项综合仿真研究的结果,该研究比较了混合格式数据中八种模型选择方法的性能,以选择正确的IRT模型组合。模拟研究结果表明,DIC、WAIC和LOO在选择正确的IRT模型组合方面具有优异的统计能力。它们的表现与LRT相当,略好于AIC,明显好于BIC、AICc和SABIC。此外,无论样本量和能力分布如何,三种贝叶斯方法的性能都比AIC和LRT更稳定。将八种模型选择方法应用于实际数据集进行演示。
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
A Comparison of Common IRT Model-selection Methods with Mixed-Format Tests
ABSTRACT To date, only frequentist model-selection methods have been studied with mixed-format data in the context of IRT model-selection, and it is unknown how popular Bayesian model-selection methods such as DIC, WAIC, and LOO perform. In this study, we present the results of a comprehensive simulation study that compared the performances of eight model-selection methods with mixed-format data to select the correct combination of IRT models. Findings of the simulation study indicate that DIC, WAIC, and LOO had excellent statistical power to choose the correct IRT model combination. They performed comparably with LRT and slightly preferably than AIC, and considerably better than BIC, AICc, and SABIC. In addition, the performances of the three Bayesian methods were more stable than those of AIC and LRT regardless of the sample size and ability distribution. The eight model-selection methods were applied to a real dataset for demonstration purpose.
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
Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives
Measurement-Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
A Latent Trait Approach to the Measurement of Physical Fitness Application of Machine Learning Techniques for Fake News Classification The Use of Multidimensional Item Response Theory Estimations in Controlling Differential Item Functioning Opinion Instability and Measurement Errors: A G-Theory Analysis of College Students Predicting the Risk of Diabetes and Heart Disease with Machine Learning Classifiers: The Mediation Analysis
×
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