Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:41:51.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Item Characteristic Curves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Paul R. Rosenbaum
Paul R. Rosenbaum*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul R. Rosenbaum, Statistics Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6302.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Test items are often evaluated and compared by contrasting the shapes of their item characteristics curves (ICC's) or surfaces. The current paper develops and applies three general (i.e., nonparametric) comparisons of the shapes of two item characteristic surfaces: (i) proportional latent odds, (ii) uniform relative difficulty, and (iii) item sensitivity. Two items may be compared in these ways while making no assumption about the shapes of item characteristic surfaces for other items, and no assumption about the dimensionality of the latent variable. Also studied is a method for comparing the relative shapes of two item characteristic curves in two examinee populations.

Keywords

item response theorylatent variable modelslatent class modelsbinary datadiscrete datacontingency tablesprobability inequalities

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , March 1987, pp. 217 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

The author is grateful to Paul Holland, Robert Mislevy, Tue Tjur, Rebecca Zwick, the editor and reviewers for valuable comments on the subject of this paper, to Mari A. Pearlman for advice on the pairing of items in the examples, and to Dorothy Thayer for assistance with computing.

References

Andersen, E. B. (1980). Discrete statistical models with social science applications, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. (1980). Factor analysis for categorical data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 42, 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, M. W. (1964). The detection of partial association, I: the 2 × 2 case. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 26, 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability (Part 5). In Lord, F., Novick, M. (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397–479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bock, D., Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model forn dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressie, N., Holland, P. W. (1983). Characterizing the manifest probabilities of latent trait models. Psychometrika, 48, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, A. P. (1979). Conditional independence in statistical theory (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 41, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W. (1971). An introduction to probability theory and its applications 2nd ed.,, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1980). Dimensionality, bias, independence and measurement scale problems in latent test score models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1981). When are item response models consistent with observed data?. Psychometrika, 46, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W., Rosenbaum, P. R. (1986). Conditional association and unidimensionality in monotone latent variable models. Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P., Henry, N. (1968). Latent structure analysis, New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1955). Ordered families of distributions. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 26, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1959). Testing statistical hypotheses, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1977). A study of item bias, using item characteristic curve theory. In Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.), Basic Problems in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 19–29). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mantel, N., Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the retrospective study of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.Google ScholarPubMed
Mokken, R. J., Lewis, C. (1982). A nonparametric approach to the analysis of dichotomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, Copenhagen: Neilson and Lydiche.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1966). An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984). Testing the conditional independence and monotonicity assumptions of item response theory. Psychometrika, 49, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1985). Comparing distributions of item responses for two groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjur, T. (1982). A connection between Rasch's item analysis model and a multiplicative Poisson model. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 9, 23–30.Google Scholar
Traub, R. E., Wolfe, R. G. (1981). Latent trait theories and the assessment of educational achievement. Review of Research in Education, 9, 377–435.Google Scholar