Advertisement

Behaviormetrika

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 405–423 | Cite as

Identified and unidentified cases of the fixed-effects 3- and 4-parameter models in item response theory

  • Haruhiko Ogasawara
Original Paper

Abstract

The 3-parameter logistic (3PL) model including guessing parameters is one of the popular models in item response theory. While the guessing parameters in the fixed-effects 3PL model with non-stochastic abilities have been believed to have identification, some counter examples with new ones given in this paper are currently available. In this paper, the concept of degeneracy for nested models is introduced. Some degenerate cases in the counter examples are shown to have model identification for guessing parameters, which are further shown to have model unidentification in a more degenerate model. Similar results in the fixed-effects 4-parameter logistic model are also derived.

Keywords

3PL model 4PL model Guessing parameters Slipping parameters Model identification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (JSPS KAKENHI, Grant No. 17K00042).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allman ES, Matias C, Rhodes JA (2009) Identifiability of parameters in latent structure models with many observed variables. Ann Stat 37:3099–3132MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo CLN (2009) Some observations on the identification and interpretation of the 3PL IRT model. Measurement 7:89–91Google Scholar
  3. Barton MA, Lord FM (1981) An upper asymptote for the three-parameter logistic item-response model (Research Report 81–20). Educational Testing Service, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum A (1958) On the estimation of mental ability. Series Report No. 15, Project No. 7755-23, USAF School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph Air Force Base, RandolphGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum A (1968) Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In: Lord FM, Novick MR (eds) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 395–479Google Scholar
  6. Bock RD, Aitkin M (1981) Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46:443–459MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bock RD, Lieberman M (1970) Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika 35:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Culpepper SA (2016) Revisiting the 4-parameter item response model: Bayesian estimation and application. Psychometrika 81:1142–1163MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Haberman SJ (1977) Maximum likelihood estimates in exponential response models. Ann Stat 5:815–841MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Haberman SJ (2004) Joint and conditional maximum likelihood estimation for the Rasch model for binary responses (Research Report RR-04-20). Educational Testing Service, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hessen DJ (2004) A new class of parametric IRT models for dichotomous item scores. J Appl Meas 5:385–397Google Scholar
  12. Hessen DJ (2005) Constant latent odds-ratios models and the Mantel-Haenszel null hypothesis. Psychometrika 70:497–516MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosmidis I (2007) Bias reduction in exponential family nonlinear models. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Warwick, CoventryGoogle Scholar
  14. Lind D (2002) Modelle zur Leistungsbewertung [Models for ability evaluation] SS2002. http://www2.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~lind/
  15. Lord FM (1953) An application of confidence intervals and of maximum likelihood to the estimation of an examinee’s ability. Psychometrika 18:57–76CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Lord FM (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lord FM, Novick MR (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Maris G (2002) Concerning the identification of the 3PL model. Measurement and Research Department Reports 2002-3. CITO National Institute for Educational Measurement, ArnhemGoogle Scholar
  19. Maris G (2008) A note on “Constant latent odds-ratios models and the Mantel-Haenszel null hypothesis” Hessen, 2005. Psychometrika 73:153–157MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Maris G, Bechger T (2009) On interpreting the model parameters for the three parameter logistic model. Measurement 7:75–88Google Scholar
  21. McDonald RP (1967) Nonlinear factor analysis. Psychometric Monograph Number 15Google Scholar
  22. Neyman J, Scott E (1948) Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica 16:1–32MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Ogasawara H (2012) Asymptotic expansions for the ability estimator in item response theory. Comput Stat 27:661–683MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Samejima F (1973) A comment on Birnbaum’s three-parameter logistic model in the latent trait theory. Psychometrika 38:221–233CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. San Martín E, del Pino G, De Boeck P (2006) IRT models for ability-based guessing. Appl Psychol Meas 30:183–203MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. San Martín E, González J, Tuerlinckx F (2015) On the identifiability of the fixed-effects 3PL model. Psychometrika 80:450–467 (Erratum 80, 1146) MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Trachtenberg FL (2000) Contribution to estimation in item response theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  28. van der Linden WJ, Barrett MD (2016) Linking item response model parameters. Psychometrika 81:650–673 (Erratum 2017, 82, 273) MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. von Davier M (2009) Is there need for the 3PL model? Guess what? Measurement 7:110–114Google Scholar
  30. Wu H (2016) A note on the identification of fixed effect 3PL models. Psychometrika 81:1093–1097MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otaru University of CommerceMidoriJapan

Personalised recommendations