Detecting Item Parameter Drift in a CAT program using the Rasch Measurement Model
description
Transcript of Detecting Item Parameter Drift in a CAT program using the Rasch Measurement Model
Detecting Item Parameter Drift in a CAT program
using the Rasch Measurement Model
Mayuko Simon, David Chayer, Pam Hermann, and Yi Du
Data Recognition CorporationApril, 2012
How should banked item parameters be checked?
• The idea for this study came about when the authors were faced with a large existing bank of CAT items with estimated item parameters that needed augmentation.
Re-calibration of banked item parameters and item parameter drift
• Recalibration is recommended at periodic interval
• CAT item data is sparse matrix and range of students’ ability for each item are limited
What would be a reasonable way to recalibrate items?
• The methods can be applied to– Maintenance of CAT item bank– Detecting item parameter drift– Calibration of field test items
How did other researchers calibrate/re-calibrate CAT data?
• Missing imputation to avoid sparseness (Harmes, Parshall, and Kromrey, 2003)
• Calibrate FT items by anchoring operational items (Wang and Wiley, 2004)
• Calibrate FT item anchoring ability (Kingsbury, 2009)
• Use ability to calibrate item parameter to detect drift (Stocking, 1988)
Simulation study• 300 items in item bank• 20,000 students’ simulated responses,
N(0,1)• Known item parameter drift (10% of
item bank)• Various drift sizes
DesignItem difficulty # of
itemsItem parameter drift sizeCondition 1 Condition 2 Control
Condition
Easy d < -1.5
10 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 -0.1,- 0.2,- 0.3,- 0.4,- 0.5, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
No change
Medium-1.5 ≤ d ≤ 1.5
10 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 -0.1,- 0.2,- 0.3,- 0.4,- 0.5, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
No change
Difficultd > 1.5
10 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 -0.1,- 0.2,- 0.3,- 0.4,- 0.5, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
No change
Four calibration methods in this study
1. Anchor person ability (AP)2. Anchor person ability and anchor 200
items difficulty out of 300 items (API)3. Use of Displacement value from
Winsteps output4. Item by Item calibration (IBI)
IBI: Item by Item calibration• A vector of responses for an item• A vector of ability who took the item• Same concept as logistic regression,
but use Winsteps to calibrate• No sparseness involved• Less data is needed (especially when
not all items in a bank needed to be checked)
Evaluation• One sample t-test with alpha 0.01 for AP,
API, and IBI• Cutoff value 0.4 for Displacement method• Type I error rate• Type II error rate• Sensitivity (Type II + Sensitivity = 1)
• RMSE (average difference from banked value for flagged items)
• BIAS (average bias from banked value for flagged items)
Type I error rate
AP API Displacement IBI0
0.0050.01
0.0150.02
0.0250.03
0.035
ControlCondition 1Condition 2
• Type I error for Control is also inflated• Condition 1 had higher Type I error rate
* Average over 40 replications
Type II error rate
AP API Displacement IBI0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Condition 1Condition 2
• Type II error for Displacement method is too high.• Condition 1 had higher Type II error rate
* Average over 40 replications
Sensitivity
AP API Displacement IBI0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Condition 1Condition 2
* Average over 40 replications
• Sensitivity for Displacement method is too low. • Condition 1 had lower sensitivity rate
Items with small sample sizes and small drift are difficult to flag correctly.
Type II error were with items with small sample size and/or small drift
Item with small drift
Items with small N
Items with large drift
Same item
Same items
Same items
Which method has re-calibrated item difficulty closer to the banked value?
• Median of the RMSE are similar across three methods• IBI has less variance of RMSE than AP
Which method has less bias with the re-calibrated item difficulty?
• All three methods has very small bias• IBI has less variance of BIAS than AP
Conclusion• Use caution with Displacement value to identify
item parameter drift.• AP, API, and IBI worked reasonably well.• Items with small drift or small sample sizes are
difficult to detect the item parameter drift• Compared to AP, IBI had less variance of RMSE and
BIAS• Item parameter in one direction (condition 1)
would cause more bias in the final ability estimate, leading to higher Type I and Type II errors.
Limitation and Future Study• Proportion of items with item parameter drift was 10% of
the bank.– How the results would change with various proportion? How
about the size of drift?• Used only Rasch model
– How about other models and software?• Minimum sample size was 10
– How about different minimum sample sizes (e.g., 30,50, etc)?• No iterative procedure (no update of the item difficulty
with drift)– Does results get better if we do iteratively, updating the
difficulty after detecting?