Umeå University's logo

This study aims to evaluate the performance of Item Response Theory (IRT) kernel equating in the context of mixed-format tests by comparing it to IRT observed score equating and kernel equating with log-linear presmoothing. Comparisons were made through both simulations and real data applications, under both equivalent groups (EG) and non-equivalent groups with anchor test (NEAT) sampling designs. To prevent bias towards IRT methods, data were simulated with and without the use of IRT models. The results suggest that the difference between IRT kernel equating and IRT observed score equating is minimal, both in terms of the equated scores and their standard errors. The application of IRT models for presmoothing yielded smaller standard error of equating than the log-linear presmoothing approach. When test data were generated using IRT models, IRT-based methods proved less biased than log-linear kernel equating. However, when data were simulated without IRT models, log-linear kernel equating showed less bias. Overall, IRT kernel equating shows great promise when equating mixed-format tests.

Item response theory (IRT) models the relationship between the possible scores on a test item against a test taker’s attainment of the latent trait that the item is intended to measure. In this study, we compare two models for tests with polytomously scored items: the optimal scoring (OS) model, a nonparametric IRT model based on the principles of information theory, and the generalized partial credit (GPC) model, a widely used parametric alternative. We evaluate these models using both simulated and real test data. In the real data examples, the OS model demonstrates superior model fit compared to the GPC model across all analyzed datasets. In our simulation study, the OS model outperforms the GPC model in terms of bias, but at the cost of larger standard errors for the probabilities along the estimated item response functions. Furthermore, we illustrate how surprisal arc length, an IRT scale invariant measure of ability with metric properties, can be used to put scores from vastly different types of IRT models on a common scale. We also demonstrate how arc length can be a viable alternative to sum scores for scoring test takers.

Item Response Theory (IRT) is a powerful statistical approach for evaluating test items and determining test taker abilities through response analysis. An IRT model that better fits the data leads to more accurate latent trait estimates. In this study, we present a new model for multiple choice data, the monotone multiple choice (MMC) model, which we fit using autoencoders. Using both simulated scenarios and real data from the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test, we demonstrate empirically that the MMC model outperforms the traditional nominal response IRT model in terms of fit. Furthermore, we illustrate how the latent trait scale from any fitted IRT model can be transformed into a ratio scale, aiding in score interpretation and making it easier to compare different types of IRT models. We refer to these new scales as bit scales. Bit scales are especially useful for models for which minimal or no assumptions are made for the latent trait scale distributions, such as for the autoencoder fitted models in this study.

Item Response Theory (IRT) is a statistical framework used to model the relationshipbetween latent traits (such as abilities or personality traits) and responses to items meantto assess those traits. In this article, we introduce the IRTorch Python package for fittingand evaluating IRT models. The package utilizes PyTorch for parameter optimizationand GPU support. It supports a diverse range of unidimensional and multidimensionalIRT models, both parametric and semiparametric. IRTorch also emphasizes the arbitrarynature of the latent variable scale, which is implicitly assumed and often ignored in otherIRT software. The package provides a flexible framework to implement custom models,scale transformations, and fitting algorithms. We illustrate some of the package’s featuresthrough several examples, including fitting traditional IRT models, using autoencoders forfitting IRT models, and using the bit scale transformation to give a unit of measurementto the latent trait scale.