SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

Evaluating Performance of Missing Data Imputation Methods in IRT Analyses

Ömür Kaya KALKAN
Hülya KELECİOĞLU
Yusuf KARA
Pages
403–416
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

Results showed that MBI outperformed other imputation methods in recovering item difficulty and mean of the ability parameters, especially with higher sample sizes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Missing data is a common problem in datasets that are obtained by administration of educational and psychological tests.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study compared the performances of missing data imputation methods that are IRT model-based imputation (MBI), Expectation-Maximization (EM), Multiple Imputation (MI), and Regression Imputation (RI).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed that MBI outperformed other imputation methods in recovering item difficulty and mean of the ability parameters, especially with higher sample sizes.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Missing Data · IRT Model-Based Imputation · Multiple Imputation

Abstract

Missing data is a common problem in datasets that are obtained by administration of educational and psychological tests. It is widely known that existence of missing observations in data can lead to serious problems such as biased parameter estimates and inflation of standard errors. Most of the missing data imputation methods are focused on datasets containing continuous variables. However, it is very common to work with datasets that are made of dichotomous responses of individuals to a set of test items to which IRT models are fitted. This study compared the performances of missing data imputation methods that are IRT model-based imputation (MBI), Expectation-Maximization (EM), Multiple Imputation (MI), and Regression Imputation (RI). Parameter recoveries were evaluated by repetitive analyses that were conducted on samples that were drawn from an empirical large-scale dataset. Results showed that MBI outperformed other imputation methods in recovering item difficulty and mean of the ability parameters, especially with higher sample sizes. However, MI produced the best results in recovery of item discrimination parameters.

Özet

Missing data is a common problem in datasets that are obtained by administration of educational and psychological tests. It is widely known that existence of missing observations in data can lead to serious problems such as biased parameter estimates and inflation of standard errors. Most of the missing data imputation methods are focused on datasets containing continuous variables. However, it is very common to work with datasets that are made of dichotomous responses of individuals to a set of test items to which IRT models are fitted. This study compared the performances of missing data imputation methods that are IRT model-based imputation (MBI), Expectation-Maximization (EM), Multiple Imputation (MI), and Regression Imputation (RI). Parameter recoveries were evaluated by repetitive analyses that were conducted on samples that were drawn from an empirical large-scale dataset. Results showed that MBI outperformed other imputation methods in recovering item difficulty and mean of the ability parameters, especially with higher sample sizes. However, MI produced the best results in recovery of item discrimination parameters.

🔖

Cite This Article

KALKAN, Ö. K., KELECİOĞLU, H., KARA, Y. (2022). Evaluating Performance of Missing Data Imputation Methods in IRT Analyses. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 403–416. https://ajindex.com/articles/540227

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1012-1028.
  2. Allison, P. D. (2001).
  3. Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage publications. Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can i deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 25(5), 464-469.
  4. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., & Husman, M. (2003). Prevention and treatment of item nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 19(2), 153-176.
  5. Dong, Y., & Peng, C. Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 222. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Enders, C. K. (2004). The impact of missing data on sample reliability estimates: Implications for reliability reporting practices. Educational and psychological measurement, 64(3), 419-436.
  6. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
  7. Finch, H. (2008). Estimation of item response theory parameters in the presence of missing data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45(3), 225-245.
  8. Finch, W. H. (2010). Imputation methods for missing categorical questionnaire data: A comparison of approaches. Journal of Data Science, 8(3), 361-378.
  9. Glas, C. A., & Pimentel, J. L. (2008). Modeling nonignorable missing data in speeded tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(6), 907-922.
  10. Graham J.W., Cumsille, P.E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In Research Methods in Psychology, ed. JA Schinka, WF Velicer, pp. 87–114. Volume 2 of Handbook of Psychology, ed. IB Weiner. New York: Wiley Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological methods, 11(4), 323. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications (Vol. 7). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Huisman, M., & Molenaar, I. W. (2001). Imputation of missing scale data with item response models. In Essays on item response theory (pp. 221-244).
  11. Springer, New York, NY. IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics base 20. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. IBM (2011). IBM SPSS missing values 20. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/missing-values20-64bit.pdf
  12. IBM (2014). IBM SPSS missing values 22. Retrieved January 24, 2018, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/pdfs/SPSS_Missing_Values_22.pdf
  13. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing complet