Abstract
Two marginal one-parameter item response theory models are introduced, by integrating out the latent variable or random item parameter. It is shown that both marginal response models are multivariate (probit) models with a compound symmetry covariance structure. Several common hypotheses concerning the underlying covariance structure are evaluated using (fractional) Bayes factor tests. The support for a unidimensional factor (i.e., assumption of local independence) and differential item functioning are evaluated by testing the covariance components. The posterior distribution of common covariance components is obtained in closed form by transforming latent responses with an orthogonal (Helmert) matrix. This posterior distribution is defined as a shifted-inverse-gamma, thereby introducing a default prior and a balanced prior distribution. Based on that, an MCMC algorithm is described to estimate all model parameters and to compute (fractional) Bayes factor tests. Simulation studies are used to show that the (fractional) Bayes factor tests have good properties for testing the underlying covariance structure of binary response data. The method is illustrated with two real data studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert, J. H., & Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 669–679. doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476321.
Albert, J. H., & Chib, S. (1997). Bayesian test and model diagnostic in conditionally independent hierarchical models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 916–925.
Azevedo, C. L. N., Fox, J.-P., & Andrade, D. F. (2016). Bayesian longitudinal item response modeling with restricted covariance pattern structures. Statistics and Computing, 26, 443–460. doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9518-5.
Box, G., & Tiao, G. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cai, B., & Dunson, D. B. (2006). Bayesian covariance selection in generalized linear mixed models. Biometrics, 62, 446–457.
Chib, S., & Greenberg, E. (1998). Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika, 85, 347–361.
Daniels, M. J., & Pourahmadi, M. (2002). Bayesian anaysis of covariance matrices and dynamic models for longitudinal data. Biometrika, 89, 553–566.
De Boeck, P. (2008). Random item irt models. Psychometrika, 73, 533–559.
De Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Fox, J.-P. (2007). Relaxing cross-national measurement invariance using a hierarchical IRT model. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 260–278.
Edwards, Y. D., & Allenby, G. M. (2003). Multivariate analysis of multiple response data. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 321–334.
Fox, J.-P. (2010). Bayesian item response modeling: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0742-4.
Hoff, P. D. (2009). A first course in Bayesian statistical methods. New York, NY: Springer.
Hsiao, C. K. (1997). Approximate bayes factors when a mode occurs on the boundary. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 656–663.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kass, R., & Raftery, A. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.
Kinney, S. K., & Dunson, D. B. (2008). Fixed and random effects selection in linear and logistic models. Biometrics, 63, 690–698.
Klugkist, I., & Hoijtink, H. (2007). The bayes factor for inequality and about equality constrained models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51, 6367–6379.
Lancaster, H. O. (1965). The helmert matrices. The American Mathematical Monthly, 72, 4–12.
Mulder, J. (2014). Prior adjusted default Bayes factors for testing (in)equality constrained hypotheses. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 71, 448–463.
Mulder, J., Hoijtink, H., & Klugkist, I. (2010). Equality and inequality constrained multivariate linear models: Objective model selection using constrained posterior priors. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 140, 887–906.
O’Hagan, A. (1995). Fractional bayes factors for model comparison. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 99–138.
Pauler, D. K., Wakefield, J. C., & Kass, R. E. (1999). Bayes factors and approximations for variance component models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 1242–1253.
Perrakisa, K., Ntzoufrasa, I., & Tsionasb, E. (2014). On the use of marginal posteriors in marginal likelihood estimation via importance sampling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 77, 54–69.
Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., & Vines, K. (2006). Coda: Convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6(1), 7–11.
Saville, B. R., & Herring, A. H. (2009). Testing random effects in the linear mixed model using approximate bayes factors. Biometrics, 65, 369–376.
Searle, S. R. (1971). Linear models (2nd ed.). London: Wiley.
Sinharay, S. (2013). A note on assessing the added value of subscores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32, 38–42.
Sinharay, S., Johnson, M. S., & Stern, H. S. (2006). Posterior predictive assessment of item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 298–321. doi:10.1177/0146621605285517.
Sinharay, S., & Stern, H. S. (2002). On the sensitivity of bayes factors to the prior distributions. The American Statistician, 56, 196–201.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 64, 583–639.
Stout, W., Habing, B., Douglas, J., Kim, H. R., Roussos, L., & Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based nonparametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(4), 331–354. doi:10.1177/014662169602000403.
van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Item response theory: Brief history, common models, and extensions. In W. van der Linden & R. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Springer.
Verhagen, A. J., & Fox, J.-P. (2013a). Bayesian tests of measurement invariance. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 383–401. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02059.x.
Verhagen, A. J., & Fox, J.-P. (2013b). Longitudinal measurement in health-related surveys. A Bayesian joint growth model for multivariate ordinal responses. Statis- tics in Medicine, 32, 2988–3005. doi:10.1002/sim.5692.
Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Wang, X. (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yao, L. (2010). Reporting valid and reliable overall scores and domain scores. Journal of Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 47, 339–360.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: (Orthogonal) Helmert Transformation Matrix
An orthogonal matrix \(\mathbf {H}\) has the property that \(\mathbf {H}^t\mathbf {H} = \mathbf {H}\mathbf {H}^t=\mathbf {I}\), where the rows of \(\mathbf {H}\) are mutually orthogonal and each row has a unit norm. A particular \((p\times p)\) orthogonal matrix is the Helmert matrix, where the first row has elements \(p^{-\frac{1}{2}}\), and all zeroes of the triangle above the main diagonal and below the first row. The remaining elements below the main diagonal are positive, where row j \((j=2,\ldots ,p)\) has elements \(\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}} \mathbf {1}^t_j,\frac{-j}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}},\mathbf {0}\right] \). Lancaster (1965) referred to it as Helmertian in the strict sense and showed various properties of Helmert matrices (see also, Searle, 1971, pp. 31–33). Subsequently, the Helmert matrix of order p is given by
Appendix B: Helmert Transformed Normal Random Variables
Consider a multivariate normally distributed random variable \(\mathbf {z}_i=(z_{i1},\ldots ,z_{ip})^t \sim \mathcal {N}\left( \mu \mathbf 1 _p,\varvec{\Sigma }\right) \), where the covariance matrix has a compound symmetry structure represented by \(\varvec{\Sigma }=\sigma ^2 \mathbf {I}_p + \tau \mathbf {J}_p\). The \(\mathbf {z}_i\) are transformed using Helmert, and the transformed variable is given by \(\tilde{\mathbf {z}}_i=\mathbf {H}\mathbf {z}_i\). The components of the transformed variable \(\tilde{\mathbf {z}}_i\) are independently normally distributed. The first component of the Helmert transformed variable, \(\tilde{z}_{i1}\), is normally distributed with mean and variance equal to,
respectively.
Consider a sample \(\mathbf {z} = \left( \mathbf {z}^t_{1},\ldots ,\mathbf {z}^t_{n}\right) ^t\), where the components are identically and independently multivariate normally distributed. Subsequently, let \(\lambda = \sigma ^2 + p\tau \), the probability density function of the first Helmert transformed component, \(\tilde{\mathbf {z}}_{1}\), is given by
where \(S^2_B = \sum _i\left( \overline{z}_i - \mu \right) ^2\). The probability density function of the \(\tilde{\mathbf {z}}_{1}\) can be expressed as the density of \(\overline{\mathbf {z}}_i\) given \(\sigma ^2\) and \(\tau \). It follows that
where \(\tau > \sigma ^2/p\), since \(\lambda = \sigma ^2 + p\tau > 0\) when considering \(\sigma ^2\) a constant.
The remaining \(n(p-1)\) components \(\left( \tilde{\mathbf {z}}_{2},\ldots ,\tilde{\mathbf {z}}_{p}\right) \) are distributed according to
where \(S^2_W = \sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=2}^{p}\tilde{z}_{ij}^2 = \sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{p}\left( z_{ij} -\overline{z}_i\right) ^2\).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fox, JP., Mulder, J. & Sinharay, S. Bayes Factor Covariance Testing in Item Response Models. Psychometrika 82, 979–1006 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9577-6
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-017-9577-6