Skip to main content
Log in

Mapping Unobserved Item–Respondent Interactions: A Latent Space Item Response Model with Interaction Map

  • Theory and Methods
  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Classic item response models assume that all items with the same difficulty have the same response probability among all respondents with the same ability. These assumptions, however, may very well be violated in practice, and it is not straightforward to assess whether these assumptions are violated, because neither the abilities of respondents nor the difficulties of items are observed. An example is an educational assessment where unobserved heterogeneity is present, arising from unobserved variables such as cultural background and upbringing of students, the quality of mentorship and other forms of emotional and professional support received by students, and other unobserved variables that may affect response probabilities. To address such violations of assumptions, we introduce a novel latent space model which assumes that both items and respondents are embedded in an unobserved metric space, with the probability of a correct response decreasing as a function of the distance between the respondent’s and the item’s position in the latent space. The resulting latent space approach provides an interaction map that represents interactions of respondents and items, and helps derive insightful diagnostic information on items as well as respondents. In practice, such interaction maps enable teachers to detect students from underrepresented groups who need more support than other students. We provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed latent space approach, along with simulation results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Different subsets or versions of the data have been used in the literature. We used the data pre-processed by Skrondal and Rabe-Hesketh (2004), which include responses from 734 respondents. We analyzed the version after deleting respondents with no item responses assuming missing at random (Skrondal and Rabe-Hesketh 2004).

  2. The MCMC estimates of the Rasch model were very similar to the ML estimates obtained from the R lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015). The results are also shown in “Appendix D” of the supplement.

  3. For PCA, a tetrachoric correlation matrix was used as input data with the R psych package (Revelle 2019). For FA, item factor analysis is applied with oblim rotation by using the R mirt package (Chalmers 2012). With both methods, two-dimensional solutions were optimal.

References

  • Agarwal, D., & Chen, B.-C. (2009). Regression-based latent factor models. Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 19-28.

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernaards, C. A., & Jennrich, R. I. (2005). Gradient projection algorithms and software for arbitrary rotation criteria in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 676–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2008). Psychometric perspectives on diagnostic systems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(9), 1089–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draney, K. (2007). The Saltus model applied to proportional reasoning data. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8, 438–455.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. P., & Glas, C. A. (2001). Bayesian estimation of a multilevel IRT model using Gibbs sampling. Psychometrika, 66, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furr, D. C., Lee, S.-Y., Lee, J.-H., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2016). Two-parameter logistic item response model - STAN. https://mc-stan.org/users/documentation/case-studies/tutorial twopl.html.

  • Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.

  • Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, P. (2005). Bilinear mixed-effects models for dyadic data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 286–295.

  • Hoff, P. (2020). Additive and multiplicative effects network models. Statistical Science (to appear).

  • Hoff, P., Raftery, A., & Handcock, M. S. (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 1090–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishwaran, H., & Rao, J. S. (2005). Spike and slab variable selection: Frequentist and Bayesian strategies. The Annals of Statistics, 33, 730–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennrich, R. I. (2002). A simple general method for oblique rotation. Psychometrika, 67, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, I. H., & Jeon, M. (2019). A doubly latent space joint model for local item and person dependence in the analysis of item response data. Psychometrika, 84, 236–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, I. H., Jeon, M., Schweinberger, M., & Lin, L. (2018). Hierarchical network item response modeling for discovering differences between innovation and regular school systems in Korea. Available at. arxiv.org/abs/1810.07876.

  • Lauritzen, S. (1996). Graphical models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovits, H., Fleury, M.-L., Quinn, S., & Venet, M. (1998). The development of conditional reasoning and the structure of semantic memory. Child Development, 69, 742–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsman, M., Borsboom, D., Kruis, J., Epskamp, S., van Bork, R., Waldorp, L. J., et al. (2018). An introduction to network psychometrics: Relating ising network models to item response theory models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53, 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1983). Generalized linear models. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and meaning of measurement in psychology. In Proceedings of the fourth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability (volume 4) (pp. 321–333).

  • Revelle, W. (2019). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research [Computer software manual]. Evanston, Illinois. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (R package version 1.9.12).

  • Rost, J. (1990). Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweinberger, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2003). Settings in social networks: A measurement model. In R. M. Stolzenberg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 33, pp. 307–341). Boston & Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, D. K., & Chen, Y. (2015). Latent space models for dynamic networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110, 1646–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. L., Asta, D. M., & Calder, C. A. (2019). The geometry of continuous latent space models for network data. Statistical Science, 34, 428–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social and community planning research. (1987). British social attitude, the 1987 report. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.

  • Spiel, C., & Gluck, J. (2008). A model based test of competence profile and competence level in deductive reasoning. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts: State of the art and future prospects (pp. 41–60). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiel, C., Gluck, J., & Gossler, H. (2001). Stability and change of unidimensionality: The sample case of deductive reasoning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 150–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., & Adams, R. J. (1995). Rasch models for item bundles. Psychometrika, 60, 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ick Hoon Jin was partially supported by the Yonsei University Research Fund 2019-22-0210 and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF 2020R1A2C1A01009881). Michael Schweinberger was partially supported by NSF award DMS-1812119.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minjeong Jeon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Minjeong Jeon, Ick Hoon Jin, and Michael Schweinberger are co-first authors with equal contribution.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 654 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeon, M., Jin, I.H., Schweinberger, M. et al. Mapping Unobserved Item–Respondent Interactions: A Latent Space Item Response Model with Interaction Map. Psychometrika 86, 378–403 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09762-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09762-5

Keywords

Navigation