Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T04:20:06.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanatory Multidimensional Multilevel Random Item Response Model: An Application to Simultaneous Investigation of Word and Person Contributions to Multidimensional Lexical Representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Sun-Joo Cho ,
Jennifer K. Gilbert  and
Amanda P. Goodwin
Sun-Joo Cho*
Affiliation:
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Jennifer K. Gilbert
Affiliation:
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
Amanda P. Goodwin
Affiliation:
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sun-Joo Cho, Vanderbilt University, Peabody #H213A, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an explanatory multidimensional multilevel random item response model and its application to reading data with multilevel item structure. The model includes multilevel random item parameters that allow consideration of variability in item parameters at both item and item group levels. Item-level random item parameters were included to model unexplained variance remaining when item related covariates were used to explain variation in item difficulties. Item group-level random item parameters were included to model dependency in item responses among items having the same item stem. Using the model, this study examined the dimensionality of a person’s word knowledge, termed lexical representation, and how aspects of morphological knowledge contributed to lexical representations for different persons, items, and item groups.

Keywords

lexical representationmultidimensional item response modelmultilevel item structurerandom item parameters
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 830 - 855
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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.)

References

Adams, R.J., Wilson, M., & Wu, M. (1997). Multilevel item response models: an approach to errors in variables regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglin, J.M. (1993). Vocabulary development: a morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, 1–166. Serial #238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D.A., Yap, M.J., Cortese, M.J., Hutchison, K.A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J.H., Nelson, D.L., Simpson, G.B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-39. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4 .Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bejar, I.I. (1993). A generative approach to psychological and educational measurement. In Frederiksen, N., Mislevy, R.J., & Bejar, I.I. Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 323–359). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowey, J.A., & Muller, D. (2005). Phonological recoding and rapid orthographic learning in third graders’ silent reading: a critical test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J.F., & Stone, C.A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J.F., & Katz, L.A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading & Writing, 19, 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S.-J., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2011). Alternating imputation posterior estimation of models with crossed random effects. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S.-J., Partchev, I., & De Boeck, P. (2012). Parameter estimation of multiple item profiles models. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 65, 438–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S.-J., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2012). Random item discrimination marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item response models. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Cho, S.-J., De Boeck, P., Embretson, S., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2013). Additive item structure models with random residuals: item modeling for explanation and item generation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Share, D.L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading: examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Boeck, P. (2008). Random item IRT models. Psychometrika, 73, 533–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boeck, P., Bakker, M., Zwitser, R., Nivard, M., Hofman, A., Tuerlinckx, F., & Partchev, I. (2011). The estimation of item response models with the lmer function from the lme4 package in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models: a generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, S.H., & Bryant, P. (2005). What children do and do not know about the spelling of inflections and derivations. Developmental Science, 8, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, S.H., & Bryant, P. (2006). Getting to the root: young writers’ sensitivity to the role of root morphemes in the spelling of inflected and derived words. Journal of Child Language, 33, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geerlings, H., Glas, C.A.W., & van der Linden, W.J. (2011). Modeling rule-based item generation. Psychometrika, 76, 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glas, C.A.W., & van der Linden, W.J. (2003). Computerized adaptive testing with item cloning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, H., & Rasbash, J. (1996). Improved approximations for multilevel models with binary responses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 159, 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, F., De Boeck, P., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2008). A double-structure structural equation model for three-mode data. Psychological Methods, 13, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodwin, A.P., Gilbert, J.K., & Cho, S.-J. (2013). Morphological contributions to adolescent word reading: an item response approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, A.P., Gilbert, J.K., Cho, S.-J., & Kearns, D. (2012). Probing lexical representations: simultaneous modeling of word and reader contributions to multidimensional lexical representations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Harm, M.W., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickendorff, M., Heiser, W.J., van Putten, C.M., & Verhelst, N.D. (2009). Solution strategies and achievement in Dutch complex arithmetic: latent variable modeling of change. Psychometrika, 74, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofman, A., & De Boeck, P. (2010). The utility of models with multidimensional random person and random item (stimuli) variables: a recovery study with lmer. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Janssen, R., & De Boeck, P. (1999). Confirmatory analyses of componential test structure using multidimensional item response theory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 245–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, R., Schepers, J., & Peres, D. (2004). Models with item and item group predictors. In De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (Eds.), Explanatory item response models: a generalized linear and nonlinear approach (pp. 189–212). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, M., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2012). Profile-likelihood approach for estimating generalized linear mixed models with factor structures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 37, 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.S., & Sinharay, S. (2005). Calibration of polytomous item families using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 369–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacGinitie, W.H., MacGinitie, R.K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L.G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests. Itasca: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Mahony, D.L. (1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and college level reading ability. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutchen, D., Logan, B., & Biangardi-Orpe, U. (2009). Making meaning: children’s sensitivity to morphological information during word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R.J. (1988). Exploiting auxiliary information about items in the estimation of Rasch item difficulty parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W.E., & Anderson, R.C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perfetti, C.A. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C.A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In Gorfein, D.S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C.A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C., & Reitsma, P. (Eds.), Precursors of Functional Literacy, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2005). Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. Journal of Econometrics, 128, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, S.W., Yang, M., & Yosef, M. (2000). Maximum likelihood for generalized linear models with nested random effects via high-order, multivariate Laplace approximation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 9, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, G., & Goldman, N. (1995). An assessment of estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary responses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 158, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, G., & Elo, I. (2003). Intra-class correlation in random-effects models for binary data. Stata Journal, 3, 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinharay, S., Johnson, M.S., & Williamson, D.M. (2003). Calibrating item families and summarizing the results using family expected response functions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 28, 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennessee Department of Education Report Card (2011). Tennessee Department of Education Report Card. Retrieved from http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/apex/f?p=200:1:4463180647001600on8-28-11.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W.E. (1990). Use of derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaida, F., & Blanchard, S. (2005). Conditional Akaike information for mixed effects models. Biometrika, 92, 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellutino, F.R., Tunmer, W.E., Jaccard, J.J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhelst, N.D., & Verstralen, H.H.F.M. (2002). Structural analysis of a univariate latent variable (SAUL) (computer program and manual). Arnhem: CITO.Google Scholar
Zeno, S.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar