Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T13:36:29.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robust Estimation of Ability in the Rasch Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Howard Wainer and
Benjamin D. Wright
Howard Wainer*
Affiliation:
Bureau of Social Science Research
Benjamin D. Wright
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Howard Wainer, Bureau of Social Science Research, 1990 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Estimating ability parameters in latent trait models in general, and in the Rasch model in particular is almost always hampered by noise in the data. This noise can be caused by guessing, inattention to easy questions, and other factors which are unrelated to ability. In this study several alternative formulations which attempt to deal with these problems without a reparameterization are tested through a Monte Carlo simulation. It was found that although no one of the tested schemes is uniformly superior to all others, a modified jackknife stood out as the best one in general, it was also super efficient (more efficient than the asymptotically optimal estimator) for tests with forty or fewer items. It is proposed that this sort of jackknifing scheme for estimating ability be considered for practical work.

Keywords

Rasch modelability estimationjackknifesine M-estimateguessing correction

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 1980, pp. 373 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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 funded through a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (78-NI-AX-0047) to the Bureau of Social Science Research, Howard Wainer, Principal Investigator. We would like to thank Ronald Mead, Anne Morgan and James Ramsay for kind, generous, and invaluable help at various stages of the project.

References

References Notes

Lord, F. Small N Justifies Rasch methods. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1979.Google Scholar
Novick, M. R. Personal communication at the third Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1979.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J. & Jensen, H. E. Effects of Sample size in the estimation of item parameters. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Computerized Adaptive Testing, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1979.Google Scholar
Wright, B. D. & Mead, R. J Analysis of residuals. Unpublished manuscript, 1976.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. The countback method, 1970, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Martin-Löf, P. Exact tests, confidence regions and estimates, 1974, Denmark: Department of Theoretical Statistics, Institute of Mathematics, University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Wright, B. D. & Mead, R. J. The use of measurement models in the definition and application of social science variables, 1977, Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.Google Scholar

References

Andersen, E. B. A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 1973, 38, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D. F., Bickel, P. J., Hampel, F. R., Huber, P. J., Rogers, W. H. & Tukey, J. W. Robust estimates of location, 1972, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, R. D. Estimating item parameters and latent trait ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, R. D. & Wood, R. Test Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1971, 22, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G. H. Einfurung in die Theorie psychologischer Tests. Grundlagen und Anwendungen, 1974, Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Cook, L. L., Eignor, D. R. & Gifford, J. A. Developments in latent trait theory: Models, technical issues, and applications. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 467–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. & Stuart, A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics (Volume 2), 1961, New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. Statistical theories of metal test scores, 1968, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Perline, R., Wright, B. D. & Wainer, H. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1979, 3, 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenouille, M. Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika, 1956, 43, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests, 1960, Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. A comparative study of several robust estimates of slope, intercept, and scale in linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1977, 72, 608–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D. M. Information in wrong responses to the raven progressive matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1976, 13, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. W. Bias and confidence in not quite large samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1958, 29, 614–614.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. Exploratory Data Analysis, 1977, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wainer, H., Morgan, A. & Gustafsson, J-E. A review of estimations procedures for the Rasch model with an eye toward longish tests. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1980, 5, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D. Sample-free test calibration and person measurement. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service. 1968, 85–101.Google Scholar
Wright, B. D. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1977, 14, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D. & Panchapakesan, N. A procedure for sample free item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D. & Stone, M. H. Best Test Design, 1979, Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar