Most multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) parameter estimation programs solve the identification problem by requiring that multidimensional traits be distributed as multivariate normal, MVN(0, I). Three types of MIRT linking methods were evaluated, which are based on a composite transformation that changes the linked group’s reference system into the base group’s reference system: an orthogonal Procrustes rotation, a translation transformation, and a single dilation. The results indicate that the best MIRT linking method was an unbiased, effective, and consistent estimator that produced accurate estimates of transformation parameters when errors in estimation of item parameters were purposely manipulated. This method was capable of successfully recovering item parameters under model-fitting conditions.
References
1.
Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 67–91.
2.
Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 255–278.
3.
Ackerman, T. A. (1996). Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 311–329.
4.
Baker, F. B. (1996). An investigation of the sampling distributions of equating coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 45–57.
5.
Batley, R. , & Boss, M. W. (1993). The effects on parameter estimation of correlated dimensions and a distribution-restricted trait in a multidimensional item response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 131–141.
6.
Bock, R D. , Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Fullinformation item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261–280.
7.
Carlson, J. E. (1987). Multidimensional item response theory estimation[Computer software] (Research Report 87-19). Iowa City IA: ACT Inc.
8.
Davey, T. , Oshima, T. C., & Lee, K. (1996). Linking multidimensional item calibrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 405–416.
9.
Green, B. F. (1952). The orthogonal approximation of an oblique structure in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 17, 429–440.
10.
Green, P. E. (1976). Mathematical tools for applied multivariate analysis. New York: Academic Press.
11.
Hambleton, R. K. , Jones, R. W., & Rogers, H. J. (1993). Influence of item parameter estimation errors in test development. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 143–155.
12.
Hambleton, R. K. , & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
13.
Harwell, M. R. , Stone, C. A., Hsu, T., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 101–125.
14.
Hirsch, T. M. (1989). Multidimensional equating. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 337–349.
15.
Kolen, M. J. , & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
16.
Li, Y. H. (1996a). MDEQUATE[Computer software]. Upper Marlboro MD: Author.
17.
Li, Y. H. (1996b). MDGEN01[Computer software]. Upper Marlboro MD: Author.
18.
Li, Y. H. (1997). An evaluation of multidimensional IRT equating methods by assessing the accuracy of transforming parameters onto a target test metric (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International,UMI Number 9816494.
19.
Luecht, R. M. (1996). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing in a certification or licensure context. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 389–404.
20.
Marcus, M. (1993). Matrices and MATLAB: A tutorial. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.
22.
McKinley, R. L. , & Mills, C. N. (1985). A comparison of several goodness-of-fit statistics. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 49–57.
23.
Mislevy, R. J. (1986). Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11, 3–31.
24.
Muraki, E. ,& Engelhard, G. (1985). Full-information item factor analysis: Applications of EAP scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 417–430.
25.
Oshima, T. C. , Davey, T., & Lee, S. (1997, March). Multidimensional linking: Four practical approaches. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL.
26.
Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401–412.
27.
Reckase, M. D. (1995, March). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. Address given at the University of Maryland, College Park MD.
28.
Reckase, M. D. (1997). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. In W. J. Linden and R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory(pp. 271–286). New York: Springer.
29.
Reckase, M. D. , & Hirsch, T. M. (1991, April). Interpretation of number correct scores when the true number of dimensions assessed by a test is greater than two. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago IL.
30.
Reckase, M. D. , Thompson, T. D., & Nering, M. (1997, June). Identifying similar item content clusters on multiple test forms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Gatlinburg TN.
31.
Roznowski, M. , Tucker, L. R., & Humphreys, L. G. (1991). Three approaches to determining the dimensionality of binary items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 109–127.
32.
Schönemann, P. H. (1966). A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 31, 1–10.
33.
Schönemann, P. H. , & Carroll, R. M. (1970). Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion. Psychometrika, 35, 245–255.
34.
Skaggs, G. , & Lissitz, R. W. (1988). Effect of examinee ability on test equating invariance. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 69–82.
35.
Stocking, M. L. (1990). Specifying optimum examinees for item parameter estimation in item response theory. Psychometrika, 55, 461–475.
36.
Stocking, M. L. , & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210.
37.
Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach to assessing-latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617.
38.
Tam, H. P. , & Li, Y. H. (1997, March). Is the use of the difference likelihood ratio chi-square statistic for comparing nested IRT models justifiable? Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL.
39.
Tatsuoka, M. M. , & Lohnes, P. R. (1988). Multivariate analysis. New York: Macmillan.
40.
The MathWorks, Inc. (1997). MATLAB (Version 5.1): The language of technical computing[Computer program]. Natick MA: Author.
41.
Thissen, D. , & Wainer, H. (1982). Some standard errors in item response theory. Psychometrika, 47, 397–412.
42.
Thompson, T. D. , Nering, M., & Davey, T. (1997, June). Multidimensional IRT scale linking without common items or common examinees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Gatlinburg TN.
43.
Wilson, D. , Wood, R., & Gibbons, R. D. (1991). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis.[Computer program]. Mooresville IN: Scientific Software.
44.
Zhang, J. (1997, June). The composite best measure by a multidimensional test score. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Gatlinburg TN.
