Assessing the Dimensionality of NAEP Reading Data

The reading data from the 1983–84 National Assessment of Educational Progress survey were scaled using a unidimensional item response theory model. To determine whether the responses to the reading items were consistent with unidimensionality, the full-information factor analysis method developed by Bock and associates (1985) and Rosenbaum's (1984) test of unidimensionality, conditional (local) independence, and monotonicity were applied. Full-information factor analysis involves the assumption of a particular item response function; the number of latent variables required to obtain a reasonable fit to the data is then determined. The Rosenbaum method provides a test of the more general hypothesis that the data can be represented by a model characterized by unidimensionality, conditional independence, and monotonicity. Results of both methods indicated that the reading items could be regarded as measures of a single dimension. Simulation studies were conducted to investigate the impact of balanced incomplete block (BIB) spiraling, used in NAEP to assign items to students, on methods of dimensionality assessment. In general, conclusions about dimensionality were the same for BIB-spiraled data as for complete data.

[1]  R. Zwick ASSESSMENT OF THE DIMENSIONALITY OF NAEP YEAR 15 READING DATA , 1986 .

[2]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters , 1982 .

[3]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Item response theory : application to psychological measurement , 1983 .

[4]  B. Muthén Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables , 1978 .

[5]  John Hattie,et al.  An Empirical Study of Various Indices for Determining Unidimensionality. , 1984, Multivariate behavioral research.

[6]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm , 1981 .

[7]  J. Carroll The nature of the data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient , 1961 .

[8]  N. Dorans,et al.  THE INTERNAL CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE SAT1 , 1987 .

[9]  P. Rosenbaum Comparing distributions of item responses for two groups , 1985 .

[10]  Roderick P. McDonald,et al.  DIFFICULTY FACTORS IN BINARY DATA , 1974 .

[11]  Melvin R. Novick,et al.  Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , 1966 .

[12]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[13]  I. Fellegi Approximate Tests of Independence and Goodness of Fit Based on Stratified Multistage Samples , 1980 .

[14]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Implementation of the EM Algorithm in the Estimation of Item Parameters: The BILOG Computer Program. , 1982 .

[15]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  Anders Christoffersson,et al.  Factor analysis of dichotomized variables , 1975 .

[17]  John Hattie,et al.  Methodology Review: Assessing Unidimensionality of Tests and ltenls , 1985 .

[18]  P. Rosenbaum Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory , 1984 .

[19]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[20]  E. Muraki,et al.  Full-Information Item Factor Analysis , 1988 .

[21]  John B. Carroll,et al.  The effect of difficulty and chance success on correlations between items or between tests , 1945 .

[22]  J. Guilford The difficulty of a test and its factor composition , 1941 .

[23]  Shelby J. Haberman,et al.  Log-Linear Models and Frequency Tables with Small Expected Cell Counts , 1977 .

[24]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Recent Developments in the Factor Analysis of Categorical Variables , 1986 .