Skip to main content
Log in

Optimizing information using the EM algorithm in item response theory

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Latent trait models such as item response theory (IRT) hypothesize a functional relationship between an unobservable, or latent, variable and an observable outcome variable. In educational measurement, a discrete item response is usually the observable outcome variable, and the latent variable is associated with an examinee’s trait level (e.g., skill, proficiency). The link between the two variables is called an item response function. This function, defined by a set of item parameters, models the probability of observing a given item response, conditional on a specific trait level.

Typically in a measurement setting, neither the item parameters nor the trait levels are known, and so must be estimated from the pattern of observed item responses. Although a maximum likelihood approach can be taken in estimating these parameters, it usually cannot be employed directly. Instead, a method of marginal maximum likelihood (MML) is utilized, via the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. Alternating between an expectation (E) step and a maximization (M) step, the EM algorithm assures that the marginal log likelihood function will not decrease after each EM cycle, and will converge to a local maximum.

Interestingly, the negative of this marginal log likelihood function is equal to the relative entropy, or Kullback-Leibler divergence, between the conditional distribution of the latent variables given the observable variables and the joint likelihood of the latent and observable variables. With an unconstrained optimization for the M-step proposed here, the EM algorithm as minimization of Kullback-Leibler divergence admits the convergence results due to Csiszár and Tusnády (Statistics & Decisions, 1:205–237, 1984), a consequence of the binomial likelihood common to latent trait models with dichotomous response variables. For this unconstrained optimization, the EM algorithm converges to a global maximum of the marginal log likelihood function, yielding an information bound that permits a fixed point of reference against which models may be tested. A likelihood ratio test between marginal log likelihood functions obtained through constrained and unconstrained M-steps is provided as a means for testing models against this bound. Empirical examples demonstrate the approach.

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

Notes

  1. Strictly speaking, these are measurement occasions over what are referred to as “parallel forms.”

  2. As a reviewer pointed out, the notation presented here may appear non-standard, since maximum likelihood estimation problems usually denote the likelihood function with the parameters first; e.g., L(ω|x). However, by interpreting the left-hand side of (3) as “incomplete” data, and the right-hand side as “complete” data, as in Dempster et al. (1977), the adopted notation is more convenient. Further, it more clearly distinguishes the structural parameters ω from the incidental parameters θ.

  3. The condition of missing responses (e.g., omitting an item) is not covered here.

References

  • Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceeding of the second international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amari, S.-i. (1994). Information geometry of the EM and em algorithms for neural networks. Tokyo: Department of Mathematical Engineering, University of Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, L. J., & Engelhardt, M. (1992). Introduction to probability and mathematical statistics. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques. New York: Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal, M. J. (2003). Variational algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of London.

  • Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick, Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46(4), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, R. D., & Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35(2), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): the general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52(3), 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of information theory (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csiszár, I., & Tusnády, G. (1984). Information geometry and alternating minimization procedures. Statistics & Decisions, 1, 205–237. Supplement issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, P.-T., Kroese, D., Mannor, S., & Rubinstein, R. (2005). A tutorial on the cross-entropy method. Annals of Operations Research, 134(1), 19–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: a didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellaert, F. (2002). The expectation maximization algorithm (No. GIT-GVU-02-20). Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harpaz, R., & Haralick, R. (2006). The EM algorithm as a lower bound optimization technique (No. TR-2006001). Graduate Center, City University of New York.

  • Harwell, M. R., Baker, F. B., & Zwarts, M. (1988). Item parameter estimation via marginal maximum likelihood and an EM algorithm: a didactic. Journal of Educational Statistics, 13(3), 243–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ip, E. H., & Lalwani, N. (2000). Notes and Comments—A note on the geometric interpretation of the EM algorithm in estimating item characteristics and student abilities. Psychometrika, 65(4), 533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jank, W. (2006). The EM algorithm, its randomized implementation and global optimization: some challenges and opportunities for operations research. In F. B. Alt, M. C. Fu, & B. L. Golden (Eds.), Perspectives in operations research (Vol. 36, pp. 367–392). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 258–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, with contributions by A. Birnbaum. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, G. J., & Krishnan, T. (2008). The EM algorithm and extensions. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Minka, T. P. (1998). Expectation-maximization as lower bound maximization. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/minka/papers/em.html. doi:10.1.1.29.8562.

  • Patz, R. J., & Junker, B. W. (1999). A straightforward approach to Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for item response models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(2), 146–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescher, D. (2004). A tutorial on the expectation-maximization algorithm including maximum-likelihood estimation and EM training of probabilistic context-free grammars. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0412015. doi:10.1.1.87.8822.

  • SAS Institute (2008). SAS-IML: Interactive Matrix Language (Version 9.2). Cary, NC.

  • Spanos, A. (1999). Probability theory and statistical inference: econometric modeling with observational data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C. (1907). Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. The American Journal of Psychology, 18, 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C. (1913). Correlations of sums and differences. British Journal of Psychology, 5, 417–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissman, A. (in press). Global convergence of the EM algorithm for unconstrained latent variable models with categorical indicators. Psychometrika.

  • Wets, R. J. B. (1999). Statistical estimation from an optimization viewpoint. Annals of Operations Research, 85(1), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C. F. J. (1983). On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. The Annals of Statistics, 11(1), 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Weissman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weissman, A. Optimizing information using the EM algorithm in item response theory. Ann Oper Res 206, 627–646 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1204-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1204-4

Keywords

Navigation