Advertisement

PARELLA: An IRT Model for Parallelogram Analysis

  • Herbert Hoijtink
Chapter

Abstract

Parallelogram analysis was introduced by Coombs (1964, Chap. 15). In many respects it is similar to scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950): Both models assume the existence of a unidimensional latent trait; both models assume that this trait is operationalized via a set of items indicative of different levels of this trait; both models assume that the item responses are completely determined by the location of person and item on the latent trait; both models assume that the item responses are dichotomous, that is, assume 0/1 scoring, indicating such dichotomies as incorrect/correct, disagree/agree, or, dislike/like; and both models are designed to infer the order of the persons as well as the items along the latent trait of interest from the item-responses.

Keywords

Item Response Item Response Theory Latent Trait Political Attitude Proximity Relation 
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. Andrich, D. (1988). The application of an unfolding model of the PIRT type to the measurement of attitude. Applied Psychological Measurement 12, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bock, R.D. and Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM-algorithm. Psychometrika 46, 443–459.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coombs, C.H. (1964). A Theory of Data. Ann Arbor: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cressie, N. and Holland, P.W. (1983). Characterizing the manifest probabilities of latent trait models. Psychometrika 48, 129–141.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., and Rubin, D.B. (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 39, 1–38.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. DeSarbo, W.S. and Hoffman, D.L. (1986). Simple and weighted unfolding threshold models for the spatial representation of binary choice data. Applied Psychological Measurement 10, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S.A. Stouffer et al. (eds.), Measurement and Prediction (pp. 60–90 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Hambleton, R.K. and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item Response Theory. Principles and Applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Hoijtink, H. (1990). A latent trait model for dichotomous choice data. Psychometrika 55, 641–656.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoijtink, H. (1991a). PARELLA: Measurement of Latent Traits by Proximity Items. Leiden: DSWO-Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hoijtink, H. (1991b). The measurement of latent traits by proximity items. Applied Psychological Measurement 15, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoijtink, H. and Molenaar, I.W. (1992). Testing for DIF in a model with single peaked item characteristic curves: The PARELLA model. Psychometrika 57, 383–397.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoijtink, H., Molenaar, I.W., and Post, W.J. (1994). PARELLA User’s Manual. Groningen, The Netherlands: iecProGAMMA.Google Scholar
  14. Lindsay, B.G. (1983). The geometry of mixture likelihoods a general theory. The Annals of Statistics 11, 86–94.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meng, X. and Rubin, D.B. (1993). Maximum likelihood via the ECM algorithm: A general framework. Biometrika 80, 267–279.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Munich, A. and Molenaar, I.W. (1990). A New Approach for Probabilistic Scaling (Heymans Bulletin HB-90–999-EX). Groningen: Psychologische Instituten, Rijksuniversiteit.Google Scholar
  17. Post, W.J. (1992). Nonparametric Unfolding Models: A Latent Structure Approach. Leiden: DSWO-Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Rappoport, R.B., Abramowitz, A.I., and McGlennon, J. (1986). The Life of the Parties. Lexington: The Kentucky University Press.Google Scholar
  19. van Schuur, W.H. (1989). Unfolding the German political parties. In G. de Soete, H. Feger, and K.C. Klauer (eds.), New Developments in Psychological Choice Modeling. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Verhelst, N.D. and Verstralen, H.H.F.M. (1993). A stochastic unfolding model derived from the partial credit model. Kwantitatieve Methoden 42, 73–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Hoijtink

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations