IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v12y1987i4p369-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Two Methods of Decomposing Item Difficulties

Author

Listed:
  • Kathy E. Green
  • Richard M. Smith

Abstract

This paper compares two methods of estimating component difficulties for dichotomous test data. Simulated data are used to study the effects of sample size, collinearity, a measurement disturbance, and multidimensionality on the estimation of component difficulties. The two methods of estimation used in this study were conditional maximum likelihood estimation of parameters specified by the linear logistic test model (LLTM) and estimated Rasch item difficulties regressed on component frequencies. The results of the analysis indicate that both methods produce similar results in all comparisons. Neither of the methods worked well in the presence of an incorrectly specified structure or collinearity in the component frequencies. However, both methods appear to be fairly robust in the presence of measurement disturbances as long as there is a large number of cases (n = 1,000). For the case of fitting data with uncorrelated component frequencies, 30 cases were sufficient to recover the generating parameters accurately.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathy E. Green & Richard M. Smith, 1987. "A Comparison of Two Methods of Decomposing Item Difficulties," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 12(4), pages 369-381, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:12:y:1987:i:4:p:369-381
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986012004369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986012004369
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986012004369?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:12:y:1987:i:4:p:369-381. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.