Article Sidebar

Submitted
Feb 21, 2019
Published
Jan 31, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 584 Download : 373

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating the aberrant response patterns and their impacts on the Jordanian version Otis- Lennon as well as the accuracy in the estimation of a person's' ability and information function test.  To achieve this goal, the Jordanian version of  the Ability Test primary II level form K was administrated to 568 first-grade male and female students of Ajloun district public schools during  2016/2017. The Lz person fit index and the three-parameter  logistic model were used to analyze students' responses to test items to assess the person ability, information function test, and to detect aberrant response patterns. The results revealed that the response patterns of 56 students were aberrant based on Lz index; also the results showed that the factors responsible for the presence of this aberrant response were: guessing, cheating, laziness, and exponential creatively. The results indicated that when the aberrant patterns were excluded, both the accuracy person's estimating ability and the information function test had significantly increased at different ability levels.

Keywords

Aberrant response patterns three-parameter logistic model information function test ability.

Article Details

References

  1. بني عطا، زايد صالح وحجازي، تغريد عبدالرحمن. (2011). تقنين اختبار اوتيس – لينون للقدرة العقلية "المستوى التمهيدي الثاني الصورة k " في البيئة الأردنية. مجلة كلية التربية وعلم النفس، 35، 267 – 304.
  2. حمادنه، اياد محمد.(2015). تقصي فاعلية المؤشر (Lz*new) في الكشف عن أنماط استجابة المفحوص غير المطابقة وفق نظرية استجابة الفقرة. مجلة العلوم التربوية والنفسية 16 (3)، 565 – 593.
  3. Baker, F.B.(2000). The basics of item response theory(2nd ed). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearing House on Assessment and Evaluation
  4. Belov, D. I., & Armstrong, R. D. (2010). Automatic detection of answer copying via Kullback-Leibler divergence and K-Index. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(6), 379–392.
  5. Birenbaum, M. (1986). Effect of dissimulation motivation and anxiety on re-sponse pattern appropriateness measures. Applied Psychological Measure-ment, 10(2), 167-174.
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  7. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. N. Y.:Harcourt Jovanovich.
  8. De Ayala, R.J. (2009). The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. NY: The Guildford Press
  9. De laTorre, J. & Deng, W. (2008). Improving person-fit assessment by correcting the ability estimate and it reference distribution. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45 (2), 159-177
  10. Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1987). Detecting inappropriate test scores with optimal and practical appropriateness indices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11 (1), 59-79.
  11. Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropriateness Measurement with Polychotomous Item Response Models and Standardized Indices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38 (1), 67-86.
  13. Green, K. E. (1996). The use of person fit statistics in mail surveys. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY
  14. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology Review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement.9 (2) ,139-164.
  15. Hulin, C. L.,Drasgow, F. & Parsons, C.K.(1983). Item response theory. Homewood Il: Dow Jones-Irwin.
  16. Iasonas, C ., Bill, B . & David, W .(2000). The consistency of examinee misfit across tests on the same subject and across subject: the case of the KS2 mathematics and science National Curriculum tests in England. Retrieved from http// www.man.edu.uk
  17. Johanson, S., Dulany, C.,& Banks, k.(2000). Measurement Error. For Good Measure. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ ED445089
  18. Karabatsos, G. (2003). Comparing the aberrant response detection performance of thirty-six person fit statistics. Applied Measurement in Education, 16 (4), 277-298.
  19. Kim, S ., Cohen, A., & Lin, Y.(3005).LDID: A computer program for local dependence indices for dichotomous items. Version 1.0.
  20. Korir, D. K.(2014). An assessment of the effects of item difficulty and examine abilty on the effect of LZ appropriateness index. Journal of Education and Practice, 5, 11 – 19.
  21. Lamprianou, I .(2013). The tendency of individuals to responded to high-stakes tests in idiosyncratic way. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14 (3), 299 – 317.
  22. Levine, M.V., & Rubin, D.B. (1979). Measuring the appropriateness of multiple choice test scores. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4 (4), 269-290.
  23. Lopez, A ., & Montesinos, H .(2005). Fittin Rasch model using appropriateness measure statistics. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8 (1), 100 – 110.
  24. Li, M. N. & Olejnik, S. (1997). The power of Rasch person-fit statistics in detecting unusual response patterns. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21 (3), 215-231.
  25. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  26. Meijer, R. R. (1996). Person-fit research: an introduction. Applied Measurement in Education, 9 (1), 3-8.
  27. Meijer, R. R. (1997). Person fit and criterion-related validity: An extension of the Schmitt,Cortina, and Whitney study. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21 (2), 99 - 113.
  28. Meijer, R.R., Molenaar, I. W. & Sijtsma, K. (1994).Influence of test and person characteristics on nonparametric appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18 (2), 111- 120.
  29. Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Methodology review: Evaluating person fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25 (2), 107–135.
  30. Nering, M. L. (1997). The distribution of indexes of person fit within the computerized adaptive testing environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21 (2), 115–127.
  31. Miller, T.R.(1991). Empirical estimation of standard errors of compensatory MI model parameters obtained from the NOHARM estimation program.(ACT Research Report No. onr91-2). Iowa City IA: ACT Inc.
  32. Nering, M. L.(1998). The influence of nonormal – fitting examine in estimating person parameter. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association conference. San Diego, CA.
  33. Reckase, M.D.(1997). The past and future of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement,21 (1),25-36.
  34. Reise, S. P., & Due, A. M. (1991). The influence of test characteristics on the detection of aberrant response patterns. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15 (3), 217-226
  35. Schmitt, N., Cortina, J., & Whitney, D. (1993). Appropriateness fit and criterion-related validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17 (2), 143-150
  36. Schmitt, A. P. and L. Crocker (1984), The relationship between test anxiety and person fit measures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 23-2
  37. Seo, D. G., & Weiss, D. J. (2013). Lz person-fit index to identify misfit students with achievement test data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73 (6), 994- 1016.
  38. Snijders, T.A.(2001). Asymptotic null distribution of person fit statistics with estimated person parameter. Psychometrika, 66 (3), 331 – 342
  39. Sotaridona, L ., Pornal, J . & Vallejo, A .(2003).Some application of Item Response Theory to testing. The Philippine Statistician, 52 (1-4),81-92..
  40. Wright, B .D., & Stone, M .H.(1999). Measurement essentials. Wilmington, Delaware.
  41. Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (3), 187-213.