The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait in an IRT model

It has long been part of the item response theory (IRT) folklore that under the usual empirical Bayes unidimensional IRT modeling approach, the posterior distribution of examinee ability given test response is approximately normal for a long test. Under very general and nonrestrictive nonparametric assumptions, we make this claim rigorous for a broad class of latent models.This research was partially supported by Office of Naval Research Cognitive and Neural Sciences Grant N0014-J-90-1940, 442-1548, National Science Foundation Mathematics Grant NSF-DMS-91-01436, and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. We wish to thank Kumar Joag-dev and Zhiliang Ying for enlightening suggestions concerning the proof of the basic result.The authors wish to thank Kumar Joag-Dev, Brian Junker, Bert Green, Paul Holland, Robert Mislevy, and especially Zhiliang Ying for their useful comments and discussions.     

Some relationships between the information function of IRT and the signal/noise ratio and reliability coefficient of classical test theory

It is shown that IRTs information function for an item is functionally related to local versions of classical test theories' signal/noise ratio and reliability coefficient.     

A generalized family of coefficients of relational agreement for numerical scales

A family of coefficients of relational agreement for numerical scales is proposed. The theory is a generalization to multiple judges of the Zegers and ten Berge theory of association coefficients for two variables and is based on the premise that the choice of a coefficient depends on the scale type of the variables, defined by the class of admissible transformations. Coefficients of relational agreement that denote agreement with respect to empirically meaningful relationships are derived for absolute, ratio, interval, and additive scales. The proposed theory is compared to intraclass correlation, and it is shown that the coefficient of additivity is identical to one measure of intraclass correlation.The author thanks the Editor and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.     

Choice between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules requiring forceful responding.

This experiment measured pigeons' choices between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules in which a force of approximately 0.48 N was needed to operate the response key. In ratio-delay conditions, subjects chose between a fixed-ratio schedule and an adjusting delay. The delay was increased or decreased several times a session in order to estimate an indifference point--a delay duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Each ratio-delay condition was followed by a delay-delay condition in which subjects chose between the adjusting delay and a variable-time schedule, with the components of this schedule selected to match the ratio completion times of the preceding ratio-delay condition. The adjusting delays at the indifference point were longer when the alternative was a fixed-ratio schedule than when it was a matched variable-time schedule, which indicated a preference for the matched variable-time schedules over the fixed-ratio schedules. This preference increased in a nonlinear manner with increasing ratio size. This nonlinearity was inconsistent with a theory that states that indifference points for both time and ratio schedules can be predicted by multiplying the choice response-reinforcer intervals of the two types of schedules by different multiplicative constants. Two other theories, which predict nonlinear increases in preference for the matched variable-time schedules, are discussed.     

The utility of verbal and behavioral assessments of value.

Subjects lived in a laboratory apartment for up to 30 days, engaging in ordinary activities such as reading, sewing, and artwork. The amount of time devoted to each activity was recorded and compared with periodic verbal ratings of the amount of time devoted to the activities. The verbal and observational assessments of the time distribution were very similar, but there were some discrepancies. Based on self-reports and on observation of time actually devoted to the activities, contingencies were arranged in which time devoted to one activity produced time available for a second activity. When the contingency relation was based on behavioral assessment, predictions of time redistribution were more accurate than when the relations were based on verbal assessment. The close correspondence between observed distributions of time and verbally assessed distributions was probably due to the well-specified situation and rigorous assessment methods. Contrary to some cognitive-behavioral accounts, the contingency results suggest that verbal assessment is not necessarily preferable to observation when the two make discrepant predictions. It is suggested that verbal reports might be used more often in behavior analysis in place of lengthy or difficult observations, and attention is drawn to a personality model that parallels important components of behavior analysis.     

Unification of models for choice between delayed reinforcers.

Two models for choice between delayed reinforcers, Fantino's delay-reduction theory and Killeen's incentive theory, are reviewed. Incentive theory is amended to incorporate the effects of arousal on alternate types of behavior that might block the reinforcement of the target behavior. This amended version is shown to differ from the delay-reduction theory in a term that is an exponential in incentive theory and a difference in delay-reduction theory. A power series approximation to the exponential generates a model that is formally identical with delay-reduction theory. Correlations between delay-reduction theory and the amended incentive theory show excellent congruence over a range of experimental conditions. Although the assumptions that gave rise to delay-reduction theory and incentive theory remain different and testable, the models deriving from the theories are unlikely to be discriminable by parametric experimental tests. This congruence of the models is recognized by naming the common model the delayed reinforcement model, which is then compared with other models of choice such as Killeen and Fetterman's (1988) behavioral theory of timing, Mazur's (1984) equivalence rule, and Vaughan's (1985) melioration theory.     

Inferential procedures for multifaceted coefficients of generalizability

A two-facet measurement model with broad application in the behavioral sciences is identified, and its coefficient of generalizability (CG) is examined. A normalizing transformation is proposed, and an asymptotic variance expression is derived. Three other multifaceted measurement models and CGs are identified, and variance expressions are presented. Next, an empirical investigation of the procedures follows, and it is shown that, in most cases, Type I error control in inferential applications is precise, and that the estimates are relatively efficient compared with the correlation coefficient. Implications for further research and for practice are noted. In an Appendix, four additional models, CGs, and variance expressions are presented.The research reported herein formed part of a doctoral dissertation conducted by Marsha Schroeder (Schroeder, 1986), under the direction of Ralph Hakstian, at the University of British Columbia. We acknowledge with thanks the contributions to this research of Todd Rogers and James Steiger. We are also very indebted to an mous reviewer who provided some important clarifications in connection with two of the models considered. Some support for this research was provided by a grant to Ralph Hakstian from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.     

On the sampling theory roundations of item response theory models

Item response theory (IT) models are now in common use for the analysis of dichotomous item responses. This paper examines the sampling theory foundations for statistical inference in these models. The discussion includes: some history on the stochastic subject versus the random sampling interpretations of the probability in IRT models; the relationship between three versions of maximum likelihood estimation for IRT models; estimating versus estimating -predictors; IRT models and loglinear models; the identifiability of IRT models; and the role of robustness and Bayesian statistics from the sampling theory perspective.A presidential address can serve many different functions. This one is a report of investigations I started at least ten years ago to understand what IRT was all about. It is a decidedly one-sided view, but I hope it stimulates controversy and further research. I have profited from discussions of this material with many people including: Brian Junker, Charles Lewis, Nicholas Longford, Robert Mislevy, Ivo Molenaar, Donald Rock, Donald Rubin, Lynne Steinberg, Martha Stocking, William Stout, Dorothy Thayer, David Thissen, Wim van der Linden, Howard Wainer, and Marilyn Wingersky. Of course, none of them is responsible for any errors or misstatements in this paper. The research was supported in part by the Cognitive Science Program, Office of Naval Research under Contract No. Nooo14-87-K-0730 and by the Program Statistics Research Project of Educational Testing Service.     

Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies

A model is presented for item responses when different subjects employ different strategies, but only responses, not choice of strategy, can be observed. Using substantive theory to differentiate the likelihoods of response vectors under a fixed set of strategies, we model response probabilities in terms of item parameters for each strategy, proportions of subjects employing each strategy, and distributions of subject proficiency within strategies. The probabilities that an individual subject employed the various strategies can then be obtained, along with a conditional estimate of proficiency under each. A conceptual example discusses response strategies for spatial rotation tasks, and a numerican example resolves a population of subjects into subpopulations of valid responders and random guessers.The first author's work was supported by Contract No. N00014-85-K-0683, project designation NR 150-539, from the Cognitive Science Program, Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research. We are grateful to Murray Aitkin, Isaac Bejar, Neil Dorans, Frederiksen, and Marklyn Wingersky for their comments and suggestions, and to Alison Gooding, Maxine Kingston, Donna Lembeck, Joling Liang, and Kentaro Yamamoto for their assistance with Example 2.