Bias in closed-form gamma parameter estimates for disdrometer data

Summary: Item parameters for several hundreds of items were estimated based on empirical data from several thousands of subjects. The logistic one-parameter (1PL) and two-parameter (2PL) model estimates were evaluated. However, model fit showed that only a subset of items complied sufficiently, so that the remaining ones were assembled in well-fitting item banks. In several simulation studies 5000 simulated responses were generated in accordance with a computerized adaptive test procedure along with person parameters. A general reliability of .80 or a standard error of measurement of .44 was used as a stopping rule to end CAT testing. We also recorded how often each item was used by all simulees. Person-parameter estimates based on CAT correlated higher than .90 with true values simulated. For all 1PL fitting item banks most simulees used more than 20 items but less than 30 items to reach the pre-set level of measurement error. However, testing based on item banks that complied to the 2PL revealed that, on average, only 10 items were sufficient to end testing at the same measurement error level. Both clearly demonstrate the precision and economy of computerized adaptive testing. Empirical evaluations from everyday uses will show whether these trends will hold up in practice. If so, CAT will become possible and reasonable with some 150 well-calibrated 2PL items.

Download Full-text

A Cautionary Note on Incremental Fit Indices Reported by LISREL

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-1881.1.2.81 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 81-85 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Stefan C. Schmukle ◽

Jochen Hardt

Keyword(s):

Factor Analysis ◽

Maximum Likelihood ◽

Structural Equation ◽

Structural Equation Models ◽

Null Model ◽

Likelihood Estimation ◽

Parameter Estimates ◽

Fit Indices ◽

Cautionary Note ◽

Confirmatory Factor

Abstract. Incremental fit indices (IFIs) are regularly used when assessing the fit of structural equation models. IFIs are based on the comparison of the fit of a target model with that of a null model. For maximum-likelihood estimation, IFIs are usually computed by using the χ2 statistics of the maximum-likelihood fitting function (ML-χ2). However, LISREL recently changed the computation of IFIs. Since version 8.52, IFIs reported by LISREL are based on the χ2 statistics of the reweighted least squares fitting function (RLS-χ2). Although both functions lead to the same maximum-likelihood parameter estimates, the two χ2 statistics reach different values. Because these differences are especially large for null models, IFIs are affected in particular. Consequently, RLS-χ2 based IFIs in combination with conventional cut-off values explored for ML-χ2 based IFIs may lead to a wrong acceptance of models. We demonstrate this point by a confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 2449 subjects.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Missing and Error-Prone Auxiliary Information on Sparse-Matrix Sub-Population Parameter Estimates

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-2241/a000095 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 89-99 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Leslie Rutkowski ◽

Yan Zhou

Keyword(s):

Sparse Matrix ◽

Small Body ◽

Auxiliary Information ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Quality Data ◽

Estimation Methods ◽

Parameter Estimates ◽

Population Parameter ◽

Conditioning Model ◽

The Impact

Abstract. Given a consistent interest in comparing achievement across sub-populations in international assessments such as TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA, it is critical that sub-population achievement is estimated reliably and with sufficient precision. As such, we systematically examine the limitations to current estimation methods used by these programs. Using a simulation study along with empirical results from the 2007 cycle of TIMSS, we show that a combination of missing and misclassified data in the conditioning model induces biases in sub-population achievement estimates, the magnitude and degree to which can be readily explained by data quality. Importantly, estimated biases in sub-population achievement are limited to the conditioning variable with poor-quality data while other sub-population achievement estimates are unaffected. Findings are generally in line with theory on missing and error-prone covariates. The current research adds to a small body of literature that has noted some of the limitations to sub-population estimation.

Download Full-text