IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inductive item tree analysis: Corrections, improvements, and comparisons


  • Sargin, Anatol
  • Ünlü, Ali


There are various methods in knowledge space theory for building knowledge structures or surmise relations from data. Few of them have been thoroughly analyzed, making it difficult to decide which of these methods provides good results and when to apply each of the methods. In this paper, we investigate the method known as inductive item tree analysis and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this algorithm. In particular, we introduce some corrections and improvements to it, resulting in two newly proposed algorithms. These algorithms and the original inductive item tree analysis procedure are compared in a simulation study and with empirical data.

Suggested Citation

  • Sargin, Anatol & Ünlü, Ali, 2009. "Inductive item tree analysis: Corrections, improvements, and comparisons," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 376-392, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:58:y:2009:i:3:p:376-392

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Schrepp, Martin, 1999. "On the empirical construction of implications between bi-valued test items," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 361-375, November.
    2. Schrepp, Martin, 2007. "On the evaluation of fit measures for quasi-orders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 196-208, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Ünlü, Ali & Schrepp, Martin, 2015. "Untangling comparison bias in inductive item tree analysis based on representative random quasi-orders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 31-43.


    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:eee:matsoc:v:58:y:2009:i:3:p:376-392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.