Item response modeling of paired comparison and ranking data.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
G Lecture 10 SEM methods revisited Multilevel models revisited
Advertisements

Structural Equation Modeling. What is SEM Swiss Army Knife of Statistics Can replicate virtually any model from “canned” stats packages (some limitations.
SEM PURPOSE Model phenomena from observed or theoretical stances
Structural Equation Modeling Using Mplus Chongming Yang Research Support Center FHSS College.
Week11 Parameter, Statistic and Random Samples A parameter is a number that describes the population. It is a fixed number, but in practice we do not know.
Exploring the Full-Information Bifactor Model in Vertical Scaling With Construct Shift Ying Li and Robert W. Lissitz.
Overview of field trial analysis procedures National Research Coordinators Meeting Windsor, June 2008.
Structural Equation Modeling
Patterson, Dayton & Graubard ASA, August 2002, NYC 1 Rejoinder.
MEASUREMENT. Measurement “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” Bob Donath, Consultant.
The Identification Problem Question: Given a set of observed outcomes and covariates, can you estimate a unique set of parameters ? Answer: In general,
Dimensional reduction, PCA
Test statistic: Group Comparison Jobayer Hossain Larry Holmes, Jr Research Statistics, Lecture 5 October 30,2008.
Structural Equation Modeling
Using ranking and DCE data to value health states on the QALY scale using conventional and Bayesian methods Theresa Cain.
Testing factorial invariance in multilevel data: A Monte Carlo study Eun Sook Kim Oi-man Kwok Myeongsun Yoon.
Raw data analysis S. Purcell & M. C. Neale Twin Workshop, IBG Colorado, March 2002.
Empirical Financial Economics 2. The Efficient Markets Hypothesis - Generalized Method of Moments Stephen Brown NYU Stern School of Business UNSW PhD Seminar,
LECTURE 16 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING.
Goodness of Fit and Chi- square test The application of contingency table.
Chapter 14 Inferential Data Analysis
Matrix Approach to Simple Linear Regression KNNL – Chapter 5.
Multiple Sample Models James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
MEASUREMENT MODELS. BASIC EQUATION x =  + e x = observed score  = true (latent) score: represents the score that would be obtained over many independent.
Structural Equation Modeling 3 Psy 524 Andrew Ainsworth.
Moderation in Structural Equation Modeling: Specification, Estimation, and Interpretation Using Quadratic Structural Equations Jeffrey R. Edwards University.
Kayla Jordan D. Wayne Mitchell RStats Institute Missouri State University.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Psych 818 DeShon. Purpose ● Takes factor analysis a few steps further. ● Impose theoretically interesting constraints on.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 7: fitting a model, fit indices, comparingmodels, statistical power.
Multi-sample structural equation models with mean structures Hans Baumgartner Penn State University.
1 Exploratory & Confirmatory Factor Analysis Alan C. Acock OSU Summer Institute, 2009.
Tests and Measurements Intersession 2006.
G Lecture 11 G Session 12 Analyses with missing data What should be reported?  Hoyle and Panter  McDonald and Moon-Ho (2002)
Measurement Bias Detection Through Factor Analysis Barendse, M. T., Oort, F. J. Werner, C. S., Ligtvoet, R., Schermelleh-Engel, K.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Highlights for Quiz 2.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
ITEC6310 Research Methods in Information Technology Instructor: Prof. Z. Yang Course Website: c6310.htm Office:
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Psych 818 DeShon. Construct Validity: MTMM ● Assessed via convergent and divergent evidence ● Convergent – Measures of the.
Measurement Models: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
G Lecture 7 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Measurement Models: Identification and Estimation James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning Chapter 10 Inferential Statistics.
G Lecture 81 Comparing Measurement Models across Groups Reducing Bias with Hybrid Models Setting the Scale of Latent Variables Thinking about Hybrid.
CFA: Basics Beaujean Chapter 3. Other readings Kline 9 – a good reference, but lumps this entire section into one chapter.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Part Two STA431: Spring 2013.
MTMM Byrne Chapter 10. MTMM Multi-trait multi-method – Traits – the latent factors you are trying to measure – Methods – the way you are measuring the.
SEM Basics 2 Byrne Chapter 2 Kline pg 7-15, 50-51, ,
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Questionnaire Design and Testing.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
Multivariate Analysis and Data Reduction. Multivariate Analysis Multivariate analysis tries to find patterns and relationships among multiple dependent.
Item Factor Analysis Item Response Theory Beaujean Chapter 6.
Examples. Path Model 1 Simple mediation model. Much of the influence of Family Background (SES) is indirect.
ALISON BOWLING CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. REVIEW OF EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Explores the data All measured variables are related to every.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Longitudinal Data David A. Kenny December
Demonstration of SEM-based IRT in Mplus
Evaluation of structural equation models Hans Baumgartner Penn State University.
Jump to first page Inferring Sample Findings to the Population and Testing for Differences.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 9: Putting it All Together.
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Questionnaire.
Chapter 14 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. Exploratory Factor Analysis  Statistical technique for dealing with multiple variables  Many variables are reduced.
The SweSAT Vocabulary (word): understanding of words and concepts. Data Sufficiency (ds): numerical reasoning ability. Reading Comprehension (read): Swedish.
Classical Test Theory Psych DeShon. Big Picture To make good decisions, you must know how much error is in the data upon which the decisions are.
IRT Equating Kolen & Brennan, 2004 & 2014 EPSY
Pairwise comparisons: Confidence intervals Multiple comparisons Marina Bogomolov and Gili Baumer.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling
Evaluating IRT Assumptions
The Trait Model of Change
Chapter 10: The t Test For Two Independent Samples
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Multitrait Scaling and IRT: Part I
Presentation transcript:

Item response modeling of paired comparison and ranking data

paired comparison and ranking data paired comparison – n(n-1)/2 pairs Ranking – n! – A special case of paired comparison when no intransitive pattern Thurstone’s model (1927) – Utility (property of item)

Ranking Y pair = 1 if ti – tk > 0 Design matrix: Utility distribution: – Case 3: – Case 5: Separate person parameter out of random error: – Note they think of loading parameter as item attributes (e.g., male actors versus female athletes)

Pairwise comparison Add intransitive error: Then Identification: – Origin and scale: N(0,I) for η – Rotation:  – Additions due to pairwise design: Fix loading parameters of a statement to 0. Fix one mean parameter of a statement to 0. Fix one unique variance of a statement to 1.

Identification: – At least n=5, 6, 7 for m = 1, 2, 3 (number of dimension). Why? – If not, require more constraints! What it is? Constrain All the covariance matrix (I have tried this!)

Thurstonian IRT model Recall Do substitution Take n=3 as example:

Parameter estimation MML may be infeasible because ICCs are conditionally dependent for Thurstone IRT model. Limited information method is applicable by using Mplus. But d.f. should be modified for ranking data:

Item characteristic function Recall Y* = Re-expressed as Note

Latent trait estimation, information functions, and reliability estimation Locally independence is violated! MAP Information function Reliability – 1. – 2.

Simulation studies To estimate Sample size: 200, 500, 1000 Item size: 6, 12 Equal or unequal variance:

Results

How "close" are the observed values to those which would be expected under the fitted model?

MAP

Vocational interest (pairwise comparison) Unrestricted thresholds: p=.046, RMSEA=.016 Equal w: p=.000, RMSEA=.025 Constrained thresholds: p=.000, RMSEA=.025 Reliability:.62 (theoretical);.43 (empirical) due to shrunken MAP Realistic Investigative Artistic Conventional Social Enterprising

Vocational interest (pairwise comparison)

Work motivation (ranking data) Chi-square fit index: p=.000, RMSEA=.062

Work motivation (ranking data) Reliability:.74 (theoretical);.76 (empirical)

Discussion Locally dependence – Using MCMC Discrimination: positively vs negatively worded Multiple traits Forced-choice design