Literature DB >> 35991824

Characterizing Sampling Variability for Item Response Theory Scale Scores in a Fixed-Parameter Calibrated Projection Design.

Shuangshuang Xu1, Yang Liu1.   

Abstract

A common practice of linking uses estimated item parameters to calculate projected scores. This procedure fails to account for the carry-over sampling variability. Neglecting sampling variability could consequently lead to understated uncertainty for Item Response Theory (IRT) scale scores. To address the issue, we apply a Multiple Imputation (MI) approach to adjust the Posterior Standard Deviations of IRT scale scores. The MI procedure involves drawing multiple sets of plausible values from an approximate sampling distribution of the estimated item parameters. When two scales to be linked were previously calibrated, item parameters can be fixed at their original published scales, and the latent variable means and covariances of the two scales can then be estimated conditional on the fixed item parameters. The conditional estimation procedure is a special case of Restricted Recalibration (RR), in which the asymptotic sampling distribution of estimated parameters follows from the general theory of pseudo Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation. We evaluate the combination of RR and MI by a simulation study to examine the impact of carry-over sampling variability under various simulation conditions. We also illustrate how to apply the proposed method to real data by revisiting Thissen et al. (2015).
© The Author(s) 2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calibrated projection; item response theory; linking; multiple imputation; restricted recalibration

Year:  2022        PMID: 35991824      PMCID: PMC9382091          DOI: 10.1177/01466216221108136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Psychol Meas        ISSN: 0146-6216


  10 in total

1.  THE IMPACT OF FALLIBLE ITEM PARAMETER ESTIMATES ON LATENT TRAIT RECOVERY.

Authors:  Ying Cheng; Ke-Hai Yuan
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.500

2.  Calibration of the Spanish PROMIS Smoking Item Banks.

Authors:  Wenjing Huang; Brian D Stucky; Maria O Edelen; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Mark Hansen; Li Cai
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2016-01-31       Impact factor: 4.244

3.  Multilevel IRT using dichotomous and polytomous response data.

Authors:  J-P Fox
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.380

4.  Restricted Recalibration of Item Response Theory Models.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Ji Seung Yang; Alberto Maydeu-Olivares
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 2.500

5.  Development of the PROMIS positive emotional and sensory expectancies of smoking item banks.

Authors:  Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Maria Orlando Edelen; Brian D Stucky; Zhen Li; Mark Hansen; Li Cai
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  An item response analysis of the pediatric PROMIS anxiety and depressive symptoms scales.

Authors:  Debra E Irwin; Brian Stucky; Michelle M Langer; David Thissen; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Jin-Shei Lai; James W Varni; Karin Yeatts; Darren A DeWalt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-07       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

Authors:  David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger.

Authors:  Paul A Pilkonis; Seung W Choi; Steven P Reise; Angela M Stover; William T Riley; David Cella
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2011-06-21

9.  Using the PedsQL™ 3.0 asthma module to obtain scores comparable with those of the PROMIS pediatric asthma impact scale (PAIS).

Authors:  David Thissen; James W Varni; Brian D Stucky; Yang Liu; Debra E Irwin; Darren A Dewalt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Characterizing Sources of Uncertainty in IRT Scale Scores.

Authors:  Ji Seung Yang; Mark Hansen; Li Cai
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 2.821

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.