Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Examining the Dimensionality and Monotonicity of an Attitude Dataset based on the Item Response Theory Models

Sayfa
296–309
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Researchers are recommended to utilize statistical techniques that can identify any possible violation of the monotonicity assumption and model items having non-monotonic response curves to examine dimensionality of their data.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In the current study, the factor structure of an attitude scale was analyzed by using the two different item response theory models that allow modeling non-monotonic item response curves.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study was conducted on a dataset obtained from 355 undergraduate students who were studying at the Middle East Technical University.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Researchers are recommended to utilize statistical techniques that can identify any possible violation of the monotonicity assumption and model items having non-monotonic response curves to examine dimensionality of their data.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Dimensionality · Monotonicity · Generalized graded

Özet

In the current study, the factor structure of an attitude scale was analyzed by using the two different item response theory models that allow modeling non-monotonic item response curves. The current study utilized the two models to examine whether the two-factor solution of factor analysis may be caused by method effect, or by the failure of the analysis in describing and fitting the dataset because of the monotonicity assumption. This study was conducted on a dataset obtained from 355 undergraduate students who were studying at the Middle East Technical University. The data were obtained by carrying out the Attitude Scale Towards Foreign Languages as Medium of Instruction, which was developed by Kartal and Gülleroğlu (2015). The fit of the scale items to the generalized graded unfolding model was examined based on the item response curves, item parameters, item fit statistics and fit graphics. For Mokken scaling, scalability coefficients were calculated, dimensionality analyzes were conducted by using the Automated Item Selection Procedure. The monotonicity assumption was investigated based on the rest-score group methods. The results of the current study revealed that items of the attitude scale fit to the unidimensional models that do not assume monotone increasing item response curves for all items, while the factor analysis suggested a two-factor solution for the data. Researchers are recommended to utilize statistical techniques that can identify any possible violation of the monotonicity assumption and model items having non-monotonic response curves to examine dimensionality of their data.

Abstract

In the current study, the factor structure of an attitude scale was analyzed by using the two different item response theory models that allow modeling non-monotonic item response curves. The current study utilized the two models to examine whether the two-factor solution of factor analysis may be caused by method effect, or by the failure of the analysis in describing and fitting the dataset because of the monotonicity assumption. This study was conducted on a dataset obtained from 355 undergraduate students who were studying at the Middle East Technical University. The data were obtained by carrying out the Attitude Scale Towards Foreign Languages as Medium of Instruction, which was developed by Kartal and Gülleroğlu (2015). The fit of the scale items to the generalized graded unfolding model was examined based on the item response curves, item parameters, item fit statistics and fit graphics. For Mokken scaling, scalability coefficients were calculated, dimensionality analyzes were conducted by using the Automated Item Selection Procedure. The monotonicity assumption was investigated based on the rest-score group methods. The results of the current study revealed that items of the attitude scale fit to the unidimensional models that do not assume monotone increasing item response curves for all items, while the factor analysis suggested a two-factor solution for the data. Researchers are recommended to utilize statistical techniques that can identify any possible violation of the monotonicity assumption and model items having non-monotonic response curves to examine dimensionality of their data.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KARTAL, S., DİRLİK, E. M. (2022). Examining the Dimensionality and Monotonicity of an Attitude Dataset based on the Item Response Theory Models. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 296–309. https://ajindex.com/articles/540048

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Carter, N. T., & Dalal, D. K. (2010). An ideal point account of the JDI work satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 743-748.
  2. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S. E., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, J. S. (2007). Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: Toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures. Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 88-106.
  3. Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Chan, K. Y., Drasgow, F., & Williams, B. (2001). Fitting item response theory models to two personality inventories: Issues and insights. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 523-562.
  4. DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006) Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 440-464.
  5. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983).
  6. Factor analysis. Saunders. Gu, H., Wen, Z., & Fan, X. (2015). The impact of wording effect on reliability and validity of the Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES): A bi-factor perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 142-147.
  7. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1985). Principles and applications of item response theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2003) Wording effects in self-esteem scales: Methodological artifact or response style?. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 435-455.
  8. Junker, B. (2000). Some topics in nonparametric and parametric IRT, with some thoughts about the future. Unpublished manuscript. Carnegie Mellon University. Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Nonparametric item response theory in action: An overview of the special issue. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 211-220.
  9. Ligtvoet, R., Van der Ark, L. A., Te Marvelde, J. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2010). Investigating an invariant item ordering for polytomously scored items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 578-595.
  10. Meijer, R. R., & Egberink, I. J. (2011). Investigating invariant item ordering in personality and clinical scales: some empirical findings and a discussion. Educational Testing and Measurement, 20(10), 589-607.
  11. Meijer, R. R., Tendeiro, J. N., & Wanders, R. B. (2014). The use of nonparametric item response theory to explore data quality. In Handbook of Item Response Theory Modeling (pp. 103-128).
  12. Routledge. Reise, S. P., & Revicki, D. A. (2015). Handbook of item response theory modeling. Taylor & Francis Group. Roberts, J. S. (1995). Item response theory approaches to a