Skip to main content
Log in

Conjunctive item response theory kernels

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conjunctive item response models are introduced such that (a) sufficient statistics for latent traits are not necessarily additive in item scores; (b) items are not necessarily locally independent; and (c) existing compensatory (additive) item response models including the binomial, Rasch, logistic, and general locally independent model are special cases. Simple estimates and hypothesis tests for conjunctive models are introduced and evaluated as well. Conjunctive models are also identified with cognitive models that assume the existence of several individually necessary component processes for a global ability. It is concluded that conjunctive models and methods may show promise for constructing improved tests and uncovering conjunctive cognitive structure. It is also concluded that conjunctive item response theory may help to clarify the relationships between local dependence, multidimensionality, and item response function form.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, E. B. (1980).Discrete statistical models with social science applications. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, E. B. (1982). Latent trait models and ability parameter estimation.Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 445–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981).Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. (1984, April). The attenuation paradox of traditionalist test theory as a breakdown of local independence in person item response theory. Paper presented at the National Conference of Measurement in Education, New Orleans.

  • Andrich, D. (1985). A latent-trait model for items with response dependencies: Implications for test construction and analysis. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.),Test design. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.),Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussmeyer, J. R., & Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error.Psychological Bulletin, 93, 549–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson (Whitely), S. (1984). A general latent trait model for response processes.Psychometrika, 49, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. (1985, June). Component latent trait models: A remedy for local dependence? Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Nashville.

  • Fischer, G. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research.Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (1981). On the existence and uniqueness of maximum-likelihood estimates in the Rasch model.Psychometrika, 46, 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Formann, A. K. (1982). Some applications of logistic latent trait models with linear constraints on the parameters.Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 397–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaier, E. L., & Lee, M. C. (1953). Pattern analysis. The configural approach to predictive measurement.Psychological Bulletin, 50, 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1980). Dimensionality, bias, independence and measurement scale problems in latent trait test score models.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33, 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Cook, L. L., Eignor, D. E., & Gifford, J. A. (1978). Developments in latent trait theory: Models, technical issues, and applications.Review of Educational Research, 48, 467–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. (1972). Local dependence latent structure models.Psychomerika, 37, 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W. (1981). When are item response models consistent with observed data?Psychometrika, 46, 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horst, P. (1954). Pattern analysis and configural scoring.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, H. (1977). Two simple cases of mastery scores based on the beta-binomial mode.Psychometrika, 42, 601–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jannarone, R. J., & Roberts, J. S. (1984). Reflecting item interactions in scale construction: Meehl's paradox revisited.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 631–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelderman, H. (1984). Loglinear Rasch model tests.Psychometrika, 49, 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, W. F. (1977). A dynamic test model and its use in the microevaluation of instructional material. In H. Spada & W. F. Kempf (Eds.),Structural models of thinking and learning. Vienna: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, G. G., & Landis, J. R. (1977). A general methodology for the analysis of experiments with repeated measurements of categorical data,Biometrics, 33, 133–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1967). Nonlinear factor analysis.Psychometric Monograph, Number 15, 32(4, Pt 2).

  • McKinley, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1983).An extension of the two-parameter logistic model to the multidimensional latent space (Research Report Number R83-2). Iowa City: American College Testing Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megargee, E. I. (1972).The California Psychological Inventory Handbook. London: Josey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I. W. (1983). Some improved diagnostics for failure of the Rasch model.Psychometrika, 48, 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1965).Linear statistical inference and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1980).Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monoticity assumptions of item response theory.Psychometrika, 49, 425–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegelmann, W. (1983). Extending the Rasch model to a general model having more than one dimension.Psychometrika, 48, 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. S. (1977).Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sympson, J. B. (1977, July).A model for testing with multidimensional items. Paper presented at the University of Minnesota, Computerized Adaptive Testing Conference, Minneapolis.

  • Wainwright, G. (1965).Configural information in item responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

  • Whitely, S. E. (1980). Multi-component latent trait models for ability tests.Psychometrika, 45, 479–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellot, J. I., Jr. (1977). The relationship between Luce's choice axiom, Thurstone's theory of comparative judgement and the double exponential distribution.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 109–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen, W. M. (1981). Using simulation results to test a latent trait model.Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I appreciate the many helpful suggestions that were given by the reviewers and Ivo Molenaar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jannarone, R.J. Conjunctive item response theory kernels. Psychometrika 51, 357–373 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294060

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294060

Key words

Navigation