Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:32:20.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Multiple Classification Latent Class Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

E. Maris
E. Maris*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Psychology, Nijmegen Institute for Cognition and Information (NICI) National Institute for Educational Measurement (CITO)
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Eric Maris, Vakgroep Mathematische Psychologie K.U. Nijmegen, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a new class of models for persons-by-items data. The essential new feature of this class is the representation of the persons: every person is represented by its membership to multiple latent classes, each of which belongs to one latent classification. The models can be considered as a formalization of the hypothesis that the responses come about in a process that involves the application of a number of mental operations. Two algorithms for maximum likelihood (ML) and maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation are described. They both make use of the tractability of the complete data likelihood to maximize the observed data likelihood. Properties of the MAP estimators (i.e., uniqueness and goodness-of-recovery) and the existence of asymptotic standard errors were examined in a simulation study. Then, one of these models is applied to the responses to a set of fraction addition problems. Finally, the models are compared to some related models in the literature.

Keywords

latent class modelslatent response modelscognitive processesEM-algorithm
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 187 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks are to Paul De Boeck for creating the intellectually stimulating atmosphere in which this class of models came about, Iven van Mechelen for the one-sided idea, Kikumi Tatsuoka for the use of her data, and Theodoor Bouw for running part of the simulation study.

References

Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S., & Holland, P.W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1988). Hierarchical classes: Model and data analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embretson, S. (1980). Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika, 45, 479–494.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis, London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Wright, M. H. (1981). Practical optimization, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1974). The analysis of systems of qualitative variables when some of the variables are unobservable. Part I: a modified latent structure approach. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1179–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagenaars, J. A. (1990). Categorical longitudinal data; loglinear panel, trend and cohort analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hagenaars, J. A. (1993). Loglinear models with latent variables, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinen, T. (1993). Discrete latent variable models, Tilburg (The Netherlands): Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Kelderman, H., & Rijkes, C. P. M. (1994). Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scored items. Psychometrika, 59, 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Louis, T. A. (1982). Finding the observed information matrix when using the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 44, 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maris, E. (1995). Psychometric latent response models. Psychometrika, 60, 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maris, E., De Boeck, P., & Van Mechelen, I. (1996). Probability matrix decomposition models. Psychometrika, 61, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, G. J., & Basford, K. E. (1988). Mixture models, New York: Marcel Dekker.Google ScholarPubMed
Mood, A., Graybill, F. A., & Boes, D. C. (1974). Introduction to the theory of statistics, Tokyo, Japan: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Muthén, B. (1978). Contributions to factor analysis of dichotomous variables. Psychometrika, 43, 551–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novick, M. R., & Jackson, J. E. (1974). Statistical methods for educational and psychological research, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1987). A non-iterative sampling/importance resampling alternative to the data augmentation algorithm for creating a few imputations when fractions of missing information are modest. Discussion of Tanner & Wong (1987). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 543–546.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1984). Analysis of fraction addition and subtraction problems, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research.Google Scholar
Van Mechelen, I., & De Boeck, P., Rosenberg, S. (1995). The conjunctive model of hierarchical classes. Psychometrika, 60, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar