The Use of Restricted Latent Class Models for Defining and Testing Nonparametric and Parametric Item Response Theory Models

By Jeroen K. Vermunt. 2001

105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47feeb2b0de3d4353dc6e77b521c20a22c067bd0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Measuring bullying at work with the short-negative acts questionnaire: identification of targets and criterion validity (2019, background): “Third, LC analysis can also take into account the fact that item properties, such as item difficulty and discriminatory power of items, may diverge (Vermunt, 2001).”
Factor Analysis with Categorical Indicators: A Comparison Between Traditional and Latent Class Approaches (2005, methodology): “More precisely, Heinen (1996; also, see Vermunt, 2001) showed that constrained LC models can be used to approximate wellknown unidimensional LT or item response theory (IRT) models 2, such as the Rasch, Birnbaum, nominal-response, and partial credit model.”
Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (2009, methodology): “…with respect to a not directly observed (latent) trait (e.g. being a target of bullying), starting with the assumption that there is only one group, subsequently estimating more classes of respondents until a LCC model is found that statistically fits the data (Magidson & Vermunt, 2001, 2004).”
Latent Class Models (2004, unknown): “LC factor models were proposed as a general alternative to the traditional exploratory LC modeling by Magidson and Vermunt (2001).”
Nonparametric Item Response Theory in Action: An Overview of the Special Issue (2001, background): “…a possibly incomplete latent trait has been pursued by American and Canadian researchers (e.g., Douglas, 1997; Habing & Donoghue, in press; Ramsay, 1991, 1997, 2000; Stout, 1987), European researchers (e.g., Bartolucci & Forcina, 2000; Vermunt, 2001) brought new modeling insights to these problems.”
Relationships and Properties of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models (2001, methodology): “To test model-data fit, the likelihood ratio statistic L2 = 2 ∑ i log ( ni m̂i ) (6) was used, where ni is the frequency of the ith response pattern, and m̂i is the estimated frequency of the ith response pattern (see Vermunt, 2001, for a discussion of L2 in an NIRT context).”
Measurement Equivalence of Ordinal Items: A Comparison of Factor Analytic, Item Response Theory, and Latent Class Approaches (2011, background): “A third, less well known but very promising approach which combines multiple group latent class analysis (Clogg and Goodman, 1984; McCutcheon, 2002) with latent class factor analysis (LCFA; Magidson and Vermunt, 2001) was recently proposed by Moors (2004) (see also Kankaraš and Moors, forthcoming).”
Do they stay or do they go (2011, methodology): “This method takes the nature, as well as the frequency and severity of the different items into account ( Vermunt, 2001”