An Information Matrix Test for the Collapsing of Categories Under the Partial Credit Model

Collapsing categories is a commonly used data reduction technique; however, to date there do not exist principled methods to determine whether collapsing categories is appropriate in practice. With ordinal responses under the partial credit model, when collapsing categories, the true model for the collapsed data is no longer a partial credit model, and therefore refitting a partial credit model may result in model misspecification. This article details the implementation and performance of an information matrix test (IMT) to assess the implications of collapsing categories for a given data set under the partial credit model and compares its performance to the application of a nominal response model (NRM) and the S − X2 goodness-of-fit statistic. The IMT and NRM-based test are able to correctly determine the true number of categories for an item, given reasonable power through this goodness-of-fit test. We conclude by applying the test to a well-studied data set from the literature.

Assessing Person Fit With the Information Matrix Test

In this manuscript, a new approach to the analysis of person fit is presented that is based on the information matrix test of White (1982) . This test can be interpreted as a test of trait stability during the measurement situation. The test follows approximately a χ2-distribution. In small samples, the approximation can be improved by a higher-order expansion. The performance of the test is explored in a simulation study. This simulation study suggests that the test adheres to the nominal Type-I error rate well, although it tends to be conservative in very short scales. The power of the test is compared to the power of four alternative tests of person fit. This comparison corroborates that the power of the information matrix test is similar to the power of the alternative tests. Advantages and areas of application of the information matrix test are discussed.

How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What to Do About It

“Robust standard errors” are used in a vast array of scholarship to correct standard errors for model misspecification. However, when misspecification is bad enough to make classical and robust standard errors diverge, assuming that it is nevertheless not so bad as to bias everything else requires considerable optimism. And even if the optimism is warranted, settling for a misspecified model, with or without robust standard errors, will still bias estimators of all but a few quantities of interest. The resulting cavernous gap between theory and practice suggests that considerable gains in applied statistics may be possible. We seek to help researchers realize these gains via a more productive way to understand and use robust standard errors; a new general and easier-to-use “generalized information matrix test” statistic that can formally assess misspecification (based on differences between robust and classical variance estimates); and practical illustrations via simulations and real examples from published research. How robust standard errors are used needs to change, but instead of jettisoning this popular tool we show how to use it to provide effective clues about model misspecification, likely biases, and a guide to considerably more reliable, and defensible, inferences. Accompanying this article is software that implements the methods we describe.

Information matrix test An application using Pareto’s original income distribution data

This article attempts to apply and interpret the correspondent Identification Matrix test (White, 1982) for a Pareto type I distribution. One of the most cited datasets used by Pareto, England’s income distribution in 1843 and in 1879, is used. Our results suggest that an alternative hypothesis, one of random coefficients cannot be accepted, i.e., we are not able to reject the hypothesis that the empirical income of England is a Pareto type I distribution.