IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v49y2024i5p753-779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Polytomous Test Data: A Comparison Between an Information-Based IRT Model and the Generalized Partial Credit Model

Author

Listed:
  • Joakim Wallmark

    (Umeå University)

  • James O. Ramsay

    (McGill University)

  • Juan Li

    (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)

  • Marie Wiberg

    (Umeå University)

Abstract

Item response theory (IRT) models the relationship between the possible scores on a test item against a test taker’s attainment of the latent trait that the item is intended to measure. In this study, we compare two models for tests with polytomously scored items: the optimal scoring (OS) model, a nonparametric IRT model based on the principles of information theory, and the generalized partial credit (GPC) model, a widely used parametric alternative. We evaluate these models using both simulated and real test data. In the real data examples, the OS model demonstrates superior model fit compared to the GPC model across all analyzed datasets. In our simulation study, the OS model outperforms the GPC model in terms of bias, but at the cost of larger standard errors for the probabilities along the estimated item response functions. Furthermore, we illustrate how surprisal arc length, an IRT scale invariant measure of ability with metric properties, can be used to put scores from vastly different types of IRT models on a common scale. We also demonstrate how arc length can be a viable alternative to sum scores for scoring test takers.

Suggested Citation

  • Joakim Wallmark & James O. Ramsay & Juan Li & Marie Wiberg, 2024. "Analyzing Polytomous Test Data: A Comparison Between an Information-Based IRT Model and the Generalized Partial Credit Model," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 49(5), pages 753-779, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:49:y:2024:i:5:p:753-779
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986231207879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986231207879
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986231207879?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
    ---><---

    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:49:y:2024:i:5:p:753-779. 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.