SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Participatory Educational Research / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

A Study on the Identification of Latent Classes Using Mixture Item Response Theory Models: TIMSS 2015 Case

Fatıma Münevver SAATÇİOĞLU
Hakan Yavuz ATAR
Pages
180–191
Publication Date
2020-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the findings, it was concluded that the data obtained from TIMSS 2015 8th grade science subtest have a heterogeneous structure consisting of two latent classes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined the existence of latent classes in TIMSS 2015 data from three countries, Singapure, Turkey and South Africa, were analyzed using Mixture Item Response Theory (MixIRT) models (Rasch, 1PL, 2PL and 3PL) on 18 multiple-choice items in the science subtest.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on the findings, it was concluded that the data obtained from TIMSS 2015 8th grade science subtest have a heterogeneous structure consisting of two latent classes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings were discussed in the context of the assumption of parameter invariance and test validity.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:TIMSS 2015 · Mixture item response theory · latent class

Abstract

This study examined the existence of latent classes in TIMSS 2015 data from three countries, Singapure, Turkey and South Africa, were analyzed using Mixture Item Response Theory (MixIRT) models (Rasch, 1PL, 2PL and 3PL) on 18 multiple-choice items in the science subtest. Based on the findings, it was concluded that the data obtained from TIMSS 2015 8th grade science subtest have a heterogeneous structure consisting of two latent classes. When the item difficulty parameters in two classes were examined for Singapore, it was determined that the items were considerably easy for the students in Class 1 and the items were easy for the students in Class 2. When the item difficulty parameters in two classes were examined for Turkey, it was found that the items were easy for the students in Class 1 and the items were difficult for the students in Class 2. When the item difficulty parameters in two classes were examined for South Africa, it was ascertained that the items were a bit easy for the students in Class 1 and the items were considerably difficult for the students in Class 2. The findings were discussed in the context of the assumption of parameter invariance and test validity.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAATÇİOĞLU, F. M., ATAR, H. Y. (2020). A Study on the Identification of Latent Classes Using Mixture Item Response Theory Models: TIMSS 2015 Case. Participatory Educational Research, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 180–191. https://ajindex.com/articles/239103

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716-723.
  2. Bock, R.D., & Zimowski, M.F. (1997). Multiple group IRT. In W.J. van der Linden & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 433–448).
  3. New York, NY: Springer. Cohen, A. S., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). A mixture model analysis of differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42,133–148.
  4. Cook, L. (2006). Practical considerations in linking scores on adapted tests. Keynote address at the 5th International Meeting of the International Test Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Dempster, de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press. de Ayala, R. J. & Santiago, S. Y. (2017). An introduction to mixture item response theory models. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 25-40.
  5. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. DeMars, C. E., & Lau, A. (2011). Differential item functioning detection with latent classes: how accurately detect who is responding differentially? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 597–616.
  7. Dorans, N. J., & Kingston, N. M. (1985). The effects of violations of unidimensionality on the estimation of item and ability parameters and on item response theory equating of the GRE verbal scale. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 249-262.
  8. Eid, M., & Rauber, M. (2000). Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(1), 20–30.
  9. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Quality of Life Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Embretson, S. E. (2007). Mixed Rasch models for measurement in cognitive psychology. In M. von Davier, & C. H. Carstensen (Eds.), Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models: extensions and applications (pp. 235-253). New York: Springer Verlag. Finch, W. H. & French, B. F. (2012). Parameter estimation with mixture item response theory models: A monte carlo comparison of maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 11(1), 167-178.
  10. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill. Glück, J., & Spiel, C. (2007). Studying development via Item Response Model: A wide range of potential uses. In M. von Davier, & C. H. Carstensen (Eds.)