Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:56:39.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Need for Negative Local Item Dependence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Brian Habing  and
Louis A. Roussos
Brian Habing*
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina
Louis A. Roussos
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Brian Habing, Department of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia SC 29208. E-Mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While negative local item dependence (LID) has been discussed in numerous articles, its occurrence and effects often go unrecognized. This is due in part to confusion over what unidimensional latent trait is being utilized in evaluating the LID of multidimensional testing data. This article addresses this confusion by using an appropriately chosen latent variable to condition on. It then provides a proof that negative LID must occur when unidimensional ability estimates (such as number right score) are obtained from data which follow a very general class of multidimensional item response theory models. The importance of specifying what unidimensional latent trait is used, and its effect on the sign of the LIDs are shown to have implications in regard to a variety of foundational theoretical arguments, to the simulation of LID data sets, and to the use of testlet scoring for removing LID.

Keywords

item response theoryconditional covariancedimensionalitygeneralized compensatory modellatent traitlocal independencelocal item dependenceMantel-HaenszelmultidimensionalityQ3testlet
Type
Article
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 435 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 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

This paper is based in part on a chapter in the first author's doctoral dissertation, written at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under the supervision of William Stout. Part of this research has been presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, California, April 14–16, 1998.

The research of the first author was partially supported by a Harold Gulliksen Psychometric fellowship through Educational Testing Service and by a Research and Productive Scholarship award from the University of South Carolina.

References

Birnbaum, A. (1968). Test scores, sufficient statistics, and the information structure of tests. In Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 425–435). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the commonx 2 tests. Biometrics, 10, 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, J. (1997). Joint consistency of nonparametric item characteristic curve and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 62, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, S., Huynh, H., Michaels, H. (1999). Contextual explanations of local dependence in item clusters in a large scale hands-on science performance assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habing, B., & Donoghue, J.R. (2003). Applications of the NIRT parametric bootstrap to pairwise local dependence assessment. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., Krakowski, K., Rogers, H.J., Swaminathan, H. (1996). An assessment of Stout's index of essential unidimensionality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H. (2000). Adjusting for information inflation due to local dependency in moderately large item clusters. Psychometrika, 65, 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E.H. (2001). Testing for local dependency in dichotomous and polytomous item response models. Psychometrika, 66, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannarone, R.J. (1997). Models for locally dependent responses: Conjunctive item response theory. In van der Linden, W.J., Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–168). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Junker, B.W. (1991). Essential independence and likelihood-based ability estimation for polytomous items. Psychometrika, 56, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B.W., Stout, W.F. (1994). Robustness of ability estimation when multiple traits are present with one trait dominant. In Laveult, D., Zumbo, B.D., Gessaroli, M.E., Boss, M.W. (Eds.), Modern theories of measurement: Problems and issues (pp. 31–61). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa, Edumetrics Research Group.Google Scholar
Kim, H.R. (1994). New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Statistics.Google Scholar
Mantel, N., Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.Google ScholarPubMed
McDonald, R.P. (1994). Testing for approximated dimensionality. In Laveault, D., Zumbo, B.D., Gessaroli, M.E., Boss, M.W. (Eds.), Modern theories in measurement: Problems and issues (pp. 31–61). Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa, Edumetrics Research Group.Google Scholar
Nandakumar, R., Stout, W. (1993). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 18, 41–68.Google Scholar
Nandakumar, R., Yu, F. (1996). Empirical validation of DIMTEST on nonnormal ability distributions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashley, P.J., & Reese, L.M. (in press). On generating locally dependent item responses. Law School Admission Council Statistical Report 95-04. Newtown, PA: LSAC.Google Scholar
Reckase, M.D. (1997). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. In van der Linden, W.J., Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–168). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. (1988). Item bundles. Psychometrika, 53, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussos, L.A., Stout, W.F., Marden, J.I. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roznowski, M., Humphreys, L.G., Davey, T. (1994). A simplex fitting approach to dimensionality assessment of binary data matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roznowski, M., Tucker, L.R., Humphreys, L.G. (1991). Three approaches to determining the dimensionality of binary items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 42, 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W.F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W.F., Habing, B., Douglas, J., Kim, H.R., Roussos, L., Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based nonparametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., Mooney, J.A. (1989). Trace lines for testlets: A use of multiple-categorical-response models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, H., Kiely, G.L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, H., Lewis, C. (1990). Towards a psychometrics for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainer, H., Thissen, D. (1996). How is reliability related to the quality of test scores? What is the effect of local dependence on reliability?. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15, 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M. (1987). Fitting a unidimensional model on the multidimensional item response data. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Wu, H., & Stout, W. (1996, June). A test of local independence going beyond conditional covariance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Yen, W.M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, W.M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Stout, W. (1999). Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika, 64, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Stout, W. (1999). The theoretical detect index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Wang, M. (1998, April). Relating reported scores to latent traits in a multidimensional test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. (1987). Assessing the dimensionality of NAEP reading data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar