Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T03:53:07.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Caution Indices based on Item Response Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Kikumi K. Tatsuoka
Kikumi K. Tatsuoka*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kikumi Tatsuoka, Research Laboratory, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory, 252 Engineering 103 S. Mathews St., Urbana, IL 61801.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new family of indices was introduced earlier as a link between two approaches: One based on item response theory and the other on sample statistics. In this study, the statistical properties of these indices are investigated and then the relationships to Guttman Scales, and to item and person response curves are discussed. Further, these indices are standardized, and an example of their potential usefulness for diagnosing students' misconceptions is shown.

Keywords

unusual response patternsappropriateness measureitem response theorycaution indicesscaling

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 95 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research was sponsored by the Personnel and Training Research Program, Psychological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, under contract No. N00014-82-K-0604.

Several of the analyses presented in this report were performed on the PLATO ® system. The PLATO ® system is a development of the University of Illinois, and PLATO ® is a service mark of Control Data Corporation.

References

Cliff, N. (1977). A theory of consistency of ordering generalizable to tailored testing. Psychometrika, 42, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N. (1983). Evaluating Guttman Scales: Some old and new thoughts. In Wainer, H. & Messick, S. (Eds.), Principles of modern psychological measurement: A festschrift for Frederick M. Lord, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drasgow, F. (1982). Choice of Test Model for Appropriateness Measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttman, L.et al. (1950). The relation of scalogram analysis to other techniques. In Stouffer, S. A.et al. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction, Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Harnisch, D. L. (1983). Item response patterns: Applications for Educational Practise. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnisch, D. L. & Linn, R. L. (1981). Analysis of item response patterns: questionable test data and dissimilar curriculum practices. The Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 39–87.Google Scholar
Harnisch, D. L., & Linn, R. L. (1981). Identification of aberrant response patterns: application of caution index, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, Department of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
Harnisch, D. L., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1983). A comparison of appropriateness indices based on item response theory. In Hambleton, R. (Eds.), Applications of item response theory, Vancouver: ERIBC.Google Scholar
Kurata, M. & Sato, T. (1981). Similarity of some indices of item response patterns based on an S-P Chart, Toyko: Nippon Electric Co., Ltd..Google Scholar
Levine, M. V. & Rubin, D. B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple-choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Application of item response theory to practical testingproblems, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MS.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Miller, M. D. (1982). Measuring between-group differences in instruction, Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, L. M. (1983). Individual Assessment Accuracy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. (1975). The construction and interpretation of S-P tables, Tokyo: Meiji Tosho (in Japanese)Google Scholar
Sato, T. (1982). Application of S-P curve theory, Tokyo: Meiji Tosho (in Japanese)Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. (1982). A Latent trait model for interpreting misconceptions in procedural domains. In Weiss, D., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing conference. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Baillie, R. (1982). SIGNBUG: An error diagnostic program for signed-number arithmetic on the PLATO® system [Computer program], Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Chevalaz, G. (1983). A map representation of misconceptions: An approach utilizing item response theory and classification functions, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Linn, R. L. (1983). Indices for detecting unusual response patterns: Links between two general approaches and potential applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(1), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1981). Spotting erroneous rules of operation by the individual consistency index, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K., Tatsuoka, M. M. (1982). Detection of aberrant response patterns. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7(3), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1982). Standardized extended caution indices and comparison of their error detection rates, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Tatsuoka, K. K. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1983). Spotting erroneous rules of operation by the individual consistency index. Journal of Educational Measurement, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatsuoka, M. M. (1978, September). Recent psychometric developments in Japan: Engineers grapple with educational measurement problems. Paper presented at ONR Contractor's meeting, Columbia, MO.Google Scholar
van der Flier, H. (1977). Environmental factors and deviant response patterns. In Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.), Basic problems in cross cultural psychology, Amsterdam: Swets & Seitlinger, B. V..Google Scholar
van der Flier, H. (1982). Deviant response patterns and comparability of test scores. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(3), 267–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D. & Stone, M. H. (1977). Best test design, Rasch Measurement, Chicago: The University of Chicago, Mesa Press.Google Scholar