This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Levine, M. V. Articles by Thomasson, G. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Measuring the Difference Between Two Models

University of Illinois

Fritz Drasgow

University of Illinois

Bruce Williams

University of Illinois

Christopher McCusker

University of Illinois

Gary L. Thomasson

University of Illinois

Two psychometric models with very different parametric formulas and item response functions can make virtually the same predictions in all applications. By applying some basic results from the theory of hypothesis testing and from signal detection theory, the power of the most powerful test for distinguishing the models can be com puted. Measuring model misspecification by com puting the power of the most powerful test is proposed. If the power of the most powerful test is low, then the two models will make nearly the same prediction in every application. If the power is high, there will be applications in which the models will make different predictions. This measure, that is, the power of the most powerful test, places various types of model misspecifica tion— item parameter estimation error, multidi mensionality, local independence failure, learning and/or fatigue during testing—on a common scale. The theory supporting the method is presented and illustrated with a systematic study of misspecifica tion due to item response function estimation error. In these studies, two joint maximum likelihood estimation methods (LOGIST 2B and LOGIST 5) and two marginal maximum likelihood estimation methods (BILOG and ForScore) were contrasted by measuring the difference between a simulation model and a model obtained by applying an estimation method to simulation data. Marginal estimation was found generally to be superior to joint estimation. The parametric marginal method (BILOG) was superior to the nonparametric method only for three- parameter logistic models. The nonparametric mar ginal method (ForScore) excelled for more general models. Of the two joint maximum likelihood methods studied, LOGIST s appeared to be more accurate than LOGIST 2B.

Key Words: Index terms: BILOG; forced-choice experiment • ForScore • ideal observer method • item response theory • estimation • models; LOGIST • multilinear formula score theory.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 16, No. 3, 261-278 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/014662169201600307


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Maydeu-Olivares, F. Drasgow, and A. D. Mead Distinguishing Among Paranletric item Response Models for Polychotomous Ordered Data Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1994; 18(3): 245 - 256. [Abstract] [PDF]