IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v46y2021i6p753-775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Item Characteristic Curve Asymmetry: A Better Way to Accommodate Slips and Guesses Than a Four-Parameter Model?

Author

Listed:
  • Xiangyi Liao
  • Daniel M. Bolt

    (University of Wisconsin–Madison)

Abstract

Four-parameter models have received increasing psychometric attention in recent years, as a reduced upper asymptote for item characteristic curves can be appealing for measurement applications such as adaptive testing and person-fit assessment. However, applications can be challenging due to the large number of parameters in the model. In this article, we demonstrate in the context of mathematics assessments how the slip and guess parameters of a four-parameter model may often be empirically related. This observation also has a psychological explanation to the extent that both asymptote parameters may be manifestations of a single item complexity characteristic. The relationship between lower and upper asymptotes motivates the consideration of an asymmetric item response theory model as a three-parameter alternative to the four-parameter model. Using actual response data from mathematics multiple-choice tests, we demonstrate the empirical superiority of a three-parameter asymmetric model in several standardized tests of mathematics. To the extent that a model of asymmetry ultimately portrays slips and guesses not as purely random but rather as proficiency-related phenomena, we argue that the asymmetric approach may also have greater psychological plausibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiangyi Liao & Daniel M. Bolt, 2021. "Item Characteristic Curve Asymmetry: A Better Way to Accommodate Slips and Guesses Than a Four-Parameter Model?," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(6), pages 753-775, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:46:y:2021:i:6:p:753-775
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986211003283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986211003283
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986211003283?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2016. "Revisiting the 4-Parameter Item Response Model: Bayesian Estimation and Application," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1142-1163, December.
    2. Justin L. Kern & Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2020. "A Restricted Four-Parameter IRT Model: The Dyad Four-Parameter Normal Ogive (Dyad-4PNO) Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(3), pages 575-599, September.
    3. Sora Lee & Daniel M. Bolt, 2018. "Asymmetric Item Characteristic Curves and Item Complexity: Insights from Simulation and Real Data Analyses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(2), pages 453-475, June.
    4. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Van Der Linde, 2002. "Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(4), pages 583-639, October.
    5. Jimmy de la Torre, 2011. "The Generalized DINA Model Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 179-199, April.
    6. Fumiko Samejima, 2000. "Logistic positive exponent family of models: Virtue of asymmetric item characteristic curves," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 319-335, September.
    7. Jimmy Torre, 2011. "Erratum to: The Generalized DINA Model Framework," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 510-510, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel M. Bolt & Xiangyi Liao, 2022. "Item Complexity: A Neglected Psychometric Feature of Test Items?," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1195-1213, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laine Bradshaw & Jonathan Templin, 2014. "Combining Item Response Theory and Diagnostic Classification Models: A Psychometric Model for Scaling Ability and Diagnosing Misconceptions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 403-425, July.
    2. Peida Zhan & Wen-Chung Wang & Xiaomin Li, 2020. "A Partial Mastery, Higher-Order Latent Structural Model for Polytomous Attributes in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 37(2), pages 328-351, July.
    3. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2019. "Estimating the Cognitive Diagnosis $$\varvec{Q}$$ Q Matrix with Expert Knowledge: Application to the Fraction-Subtraction Dataset," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(2), pages 333-357, June.
    4. Yuqi Gu, 2023. "Generic Identifiability of the DINA Model and Blessing of Latent Dependence," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 117-131, March.
    5. Peida Zhan & Hong Jiao & Kaiwen Man & Lijun Wang, 2019. "Using JAGS for Bayesian Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling: A Tutorial," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(4), pages 473-503, August.
    6. Yinghan Chen & Steven Andrew Culpepper & Yuguo Chen, 2023. "Bayesian Inference for an Unknown Number of Attributes in Restricted Latent Class Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 613-635, June.
    7. Matthew S. Johnson & Sandip Sinharay, 2020. "The Reliability of the Posterior Probability of Skill Attainment in Diagnostic Classification Models," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(1), pages 5-31, February.
    8. Chenchen Ma & Jing Ouyang & Gongjun Xu, 2023. "Learning Latent and Hierarchical Structures in Cognitive Diagnosis Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 175-207, March.
    9. James Joseph Balamuta & Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2022. "Exploratory Restricted Latent Class Models with Monotonicity Requirements under PÒLYA–GAMMA Data Augmentation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 903-945, September.
    10. Kazuhiro Yamaguchi & Kensuke Okada, 2020. "Variational Bayes Inference for the DINA Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(5), pages 569-597, October.
    11. Qingrong Tan & Yan Cai & Fen Luo & Dongbo Tu, 2023. "Development of a High-Accuracy and Effective Online Calibration Method in CD-CAT Based on Gini Index," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 48(1), pages 103-141, February.
    12. Peida Zhan & Hong Jiao & Dandan Liao & Feiming Li, 2019. "A Longitudinal Higher-Order Diagnostic Classification Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(3), pages 251-281, June.
    13. Kazuhiro Yamaguchi & Kensuke Okada, 2020. "Variational Bayes Inference Algorithm for the Saturated Diagnostic Classification Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(4), pages 973-995, December.
    14. Chia-Yi Chiu & Yuan-Pei Chang, 2021. "Advances in CD-CAT: The General Nonparametric Item Selection Method," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(4), pages 1039-1057, December.
    15. Chen-Wei Liu & Björn Andersson & Anders Skrondal, 2020. "A Constrained Metropolis–Hastings Robbins–Monro Algorithm for Q Matrix Estimation in DINA Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(2), pages 322-357, June.
    16. Chun Wang & Jing Lu, 2021. "Learning Attribute Hierarchies From Data: Two Exploratory Approaches," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(1), pages 58-84, February.
    17. Hans Friedrich Köhn & Chia-Yi Chiu, 2021. "A Unified Theory of the Completeness of Q-Matrices for the DINA Model," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 38(3), pages 500-518, October.
    18. Xuliang Gao & Wenchao Ma & Daxun Wang & Yan Cai & Dongbo Tu, 2021. "A Class of Cognitive Diagnosis Models for Polytomous Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(3), pages 297-322, June.
    19. Kevin Carl P. Santos & Jimmy Torre & Matthias Davier, 2020. "Adjusting Person Fit Index for Skewness in Cognitive Diagnosis Modeling," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 37(2), pages 399-420, July.
    20. Jimmy de la Torre & Xue-Lan Qiu & Kevin Carl Santos, 2022. "An Empirical Q-Matrix Validation Method for the Polytomous G-DINA Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 693-724, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:46:y:2021:i:6:p:753-775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.