On the Complexity of Item Response Theory Models

Wes E. Bonifay · Li Cai

153 citations0/0 files storedMultivariate Behavioral Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Educational Assessment and Pedagogy Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Abstract

Complexity in item response theory (IRT) has traditionally been quantified by simply counting the number of freely estimated parameters in the model. However, complexity is also contingent upon the functional form of the model. We examined four popular IRT models-exploratory factor analytic, bifactor, DINA, and DINO-with different functional forms but the same number of free parameters. In comparison, a simpler (unidimensional 3PL) model was specified such that it had 1 more parameter than the previous models. All models were then evaluated according to the minimum description length principle. Specifically, each model was fit to 1,000 data sets that were randomly and uniformly sampled from the complete data space and then assessed using global and item-level fit and diagnostic measures. The findings revealed that the factor analytic and bifactor models possess a strong tendency to fit any possible data. The unidimensional 3PL model displayed minimal fitting propensity, despite the fact that it included an additional free parameter. The DINA and DINO models did not demonstrate a proclivity to fit any possible data, but they did fit well to distinct data patterns. Applied researchers and psychometricians should therefore consider functional form-and not goodness-of-fit alone-when selecting an IRT model.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 153 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 2014Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.1969Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores 1989LISREL 7 : user's reference guide 1981Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Item Parameters: Application of an EM Algorithm 2012The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models 1997Exploratory Factor Analysis: Its Role in Item Analysis 2001Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions, and Connections with Nonparametric Item Response Theory

Cited by

2019Are fit indices used to test psychopathology structure biased? A simulation study.2019Riskier Tests of the Validity of the Bifactor Model of Psychopathology 2019Seeking certainty about Intolerance of Uncertainty: Addressing old and new issues through the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Revised 2019An examination of the Triarchic Model of psychopathy's nomological network: A meta-analytic review 2021Culture and psychopathology: An attempt at reconsidering the role of social learning

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.