位置:成果数据库 > 期刊 > 期刊详情页
分类数据测量等价性检验方法及其比较:项目阈值(难度)参数的组间差异性检验
  • ISSN号:0439-755X
  • 期刊名称:心理学报
  • 时间:2012
  • 页码:1124-1136
  • 分类:B841[哲学宗教—基础心理学;哲学宗教—心理学]
  • 作者机构:[1]北京师范大学心理学院,应用实验心理北京市重点实验室,北京100875, [2]北京新东方学校学习与发展中心,100080, [3]北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室,北京100875
  • 相关基金:国家自然科学基金(31100759);全国教育科学“十二五”规划教育部重点课题(GFA111001)和教育部人文社会科学基金(11YJC190016)资助.
  • 相关项目:追踪研究中潜类别混合模型和多阶段发展模型分析方法及其应用
中文摘要:

测量工具满足等价性是进行多组比较的前提,测量等价性的检验方法主要有基于CFA的多组比较法和基于IRT的DIF检验两类方法。文章比较了单维测验情境下基于CCFA的DIFFTEST检验方法和基于IRT模型的1RT-LR检验方法,以及多维测验情境下DIFFTEST和基于MIRT的卡方检验方法的差异。通过模拟研究的方法,比较了几种方法的检验力和第一类错误,并考虑了样本总量、样本量的组间均衡性、测验长度、阈值差异大小以及维度间相关程度的影响。研究结果表明:(1)在单维测验下,IRT-LR是比DIFFTEST更为严格的检验方法;多维测验下,在测验较长、测验维度之间相关较高时,MIRT-MG比DIFFTEST更容易检验出项目阈值的差异,而在测验长度较短、维度之间相关较小时,DIFFTEST的检验力反而略高于MIRT-MG方法。(2)随着阈值差值增加,DIFFTEST、IRT-LR和MIRT-MG三种方法的检验力均在增加,当阈值差异达到中等或较大时,三种方法都可以有效检验出测验阈值的不等价性。(3)随着样本总量增加,DIFFTEST、IRT-LR和MIRT-MG方法的检验力均在增加;在总样本量不变,两组样本均衡情况下三种方法的检验力均高于不均衡的情况。(4)违背等价性题目个数不变时,测验越长DIFFTEST的检验力会下降,而IRT-LR和MIRT-MG检验力则上升。(5)DIFFTEST方法的一类错误率平均值接近名义值0.05;而IRT-LR和MIRT-MG方法的一类错误率平均值远低于0.05。

英文摘要:

Multiple group confirmatory factor analyses and differential item functioning basing on the unidimensional or the multidimensional item response theory were the two most commonly used methods to assess the measurement equivalence of categorical items. Unlike the traditional linear factor analysis, multiple-group categorical confirmatory factor analysis (CCFA) could model the categorical measures with a threshold structure appropriately, which is comparable to the difficulty parameters in the multidimensional IRT [(M)IRT)]. In this study, we compared the multiple-group categorical CFA (CCFA) and (M)IRT in terms of their power to detect violations of measurement invariance (i.e., DIF) with the Monte Carlo method. Moreover, given the limitation of the assumptions under the traditional unidimensional IRT model, this study extended the DIF test method to the (M)IRT model. Simulation studies under both unidimensional and multidimensional conditions were conducted to compare the DIFFTEST method, IRT-LR method (for unidimensional scale), and MIRT-MG (for multidimensional scale) with respect to their power to detect the lack of invariance across groups. Results indicated that the three methods, namely, DIFFTEST, IRT-LR, and MIRT-MG, showed reasonable power to identify the measurement non-equivalence when the difference of threshold was large. For unidimensional scale, the IRT-LR test demonstrated superior power to DIFFTEST. Whereas, for multidimensional scale, the results were not completely consistent across different conditions. The power of MIRT-MG was higher than that of DIFFTEST when test length was long and the correlation between dimensions was high. In contrast, the power of DIFFTEST was higher than that of MIRT-MG when test length was short and the correlations between dimensions were low. For a fixed number of noninvariant items, the power of the DIFFTEST method became smaller as the test length increased, whereas the power of the IRT-LR and MIRT-MG methods became larger as the

同期刊论文项目
同项目期刊论文
期刊信息
  • 《心理学报》
  • 北大核心期刊(2011版)
  • 主管单位:中国科学院
  • 主办单位:中国心理学会 中国科学院心理研究所
  • 主编:张侃
  • 地址:北京市朝阳区林萃路16号院
  • 邮编:100101
  • 邮箱:xuebao@psych.ac.cn
  • 电话:010-64850861
  • 国际标准刊号:ISSN:0439-755X
  • 国内统一刊号:ISSN:11-1911/B
  • 邮发代号:82-12
  • 获奖情况:
  • 国内外数据库收录:
  • 日本日本科学技术振兴机构数据库,中国中国人文社科核心期刊,中国中国科技核心期刊,中国北大核心期刊(2004版),中国北大核心期刊(2008版),中国北大核心期刊(2011版),中国北大核心期刊(2014版),中国国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库,中国北大核心期刊(2000版)
  • 被引量:33136