Advertisement

A Hyperbolic Cosine IRT Model for Unfolding Direct Responses of Persons to Items

  • David Andrich
Chapter

Abstract

The two main mechanisms for characterizing dichotomous responses of persons to items on a single dimension are the cumulative and the unfolding. In the former, the probability of a positive response is a monotonic function of the relevant parameters; in the latter, it is single-peaked. This chapter presents a unidimensional IRT model for unfolding. Figure 1 shows the response functions (RFs) of the probabilities of the responses, including the resolution of the negative response into its two constituent components. Table 1 shows a deterministic unfolding response pattern for five items.

Keywords

Capital Punishment Item Response Theory Item Response Theory Model Marginal Maximum Likelihood Apply Psychological Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, E.B. (1973). Conditional inference for multiple choice questionnaires British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 26, 31–44.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, E.B. (1977). Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 42, 69–81.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrich, D. (1982). An extension of the Rasch model for ratings providing both location and dispersion parameters. Psychometrika 47, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrich, D. (1988). The application of an unfolding direct-responses and pairwise preferences (Research Report No. 4 ). Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University, Social Measurement Laboratory.Google Scholar
  6. Andrich, D. (in press). Hyperbolic cosine latent trait models for unfolding direct responses and pairwise preferences. Applied Psychological Measurement. Google Scholar
  7. Andrich, D. and Luo, G. (1993). A hyperbolic cosine latent trait model for unfolding dichotomous single-stimulus responses. Applied Psychological Measurement 17, 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coombs, C.H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Coombs, C.H. and Avrunin, C.S. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review 84(2), 216–230.Google Scholar
  10. Coombs, C.H. and Smith, J.E.K. (1973). On the detection of structure in attitudes and developmental process. Psychological Review 5, 80(5), 337–351.Google Scholar
  11. Davison, M. (1977). On a metric, unidimensional unfolding model for attitudinal and developmental data. Psychometrika 42, 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leik, R.K. and Matthews, M. (1968). A scale for developmental processes. American Sociological Review 33(1), 62075.Google Scholar
  13. Luo, G. and Andrich, D. (1993). HCMDR: A FORTRAN Program for analyzing direct responses according to hyperbolic cosine unfolding model (Social Measurement Laboratory Report No. 5 ). Western Australia: School of Education, Murdoch University.Google Scholar
  14. Post, W.J. (1992). Nonparametric Unfolding Models: A Latent Structure Approach. Leiden: DSWO Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In J. Neyman (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability IV (pp. 321–334 ). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 34, 278–286.Google Scholar
  17. Thurstone, L.L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology 33, 529–554.Google Scholar
  18. van Blokland-Vogelesang, R. (1991). Unfolding and Group Consensus Ranking for Individual Preferences. Leiden: DSWPO Press.Google Scholar
  19. van Schuur, W.H. (1984). Structure in Political Beliefs, a New Model for Stochastic Unfolding with Application to European Party Activists. Amsterdam: CT Press.Google Scholar
  20. van Schuur, W.H. (1987). Constraint in European party activists’ sympathy scores for interest groups: The left-right dimension as dominant structuring principle. European Journal of Political Research 15, 347362.Google Scholar
  21. van Schuur, W.H. (1989). Unfolding German political parties: A description and application of multiple unidimensional unfolding. In G. de Soete, H. Ferger, and K.C. Klauser (eds.), New Developments in Psychological Choice Modelling, (pp. 259–277 ). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Verhelst, N.D. and Verstralen, H.H.F.M. (1991). A stochastic unfolding model with inherently missing data. Unpublished manuscript, CITO, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Volet, S.E. and Chalmers, D. (1992). Investigation of qualitative differences in university students’ learning goals, based on an unfolding model of stage development. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62, 1734.Google Scholar
  24. Wohlwill, J.F. (1963). The measurement of scalability for noncumulative items. Educational and Psychological Measurement 23, 543–555.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, B.D. and Douglas, G.A. (1977). Conditional versus unconditional procedures for sample-free item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 37, 47–60.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, B.D. and Masters, G.N. (1982). Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Andrich

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations