Methodology Review: Evaluating Person Fit

By Rob R. Meijer, Klaas Sijtsma. 2001

432 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/58a28dfa06a91b42dd1c99e49aaf83a0561a8162

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Outliers in Questionnaire Data (2011, background): “Gþ counts these errors (Meijer, 1994; Meijer & Sijtsma, 2001); that is Gvþ ¼ XJ m i¼2 Zvi Xi 1 j¼1 ð1 ZvjÞ "”
Item response theory and clinical measurement. (2009, background): “Indeed, this idea is represented in a sizable number of person-fit indices (scalability, appropriateness) that assess the degree to which an individual’s item response pattern is consistent with an IRT model (Meijer & Sijtsma 2001).”
Testing Person Fit in Cognitive Diagnosis (2009, neutral): “In the review on person fit in IRT models, Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) also pointed out that detection rates are highly dependent on test length and the type of misfitting response behavior.”
Comparing the Aberrant Response Detection Performance of Thirty-Six Person-Fit Statistics (2003, methodology): “Four non-parametric person-fit approaches mentioned in the literature are excluded from Table 1. The first is the Norm Conformity Index (NCI, Tatsuoka & Tatsuoka, 1983), which relates perfectly to G*, with NCI = 1–2G* ( Meijer & Sijtsma, 2001 ).”
Careless Responding to Reverse-Worded Items: Implications for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (2006, background): “Various indices aimed at detecting aberrant or unusual item response patterns (Drasgow, Levine, & Williams, 1985; Levine & Drasgow, 1982; Meijer & Sijtsma, 1995, 2001 ; R eise,1995 ;R eise & Flannery, 1996) could be applied.”
A Person Fit Test For Irt Models For Polytomous Items (2007, background): “Meijer and Sijtsma (1995, 2001) give an overview of person fit statistics proposed for various IRT models.”
Unique Characteristics of Diagnostic Classification Models: A Comprehensive Review of the Current State-of-the-Art (2008, neutral): “…a slew of indices emanating from nonparametric and parametric frameworks within IRT has been proposed for item fit (Orlando & Thissen, 2000) and person fit (Meijer & Sijtsma, 2001) in the second half of the last century and has recently been adapted to the realm of DCM (Sinharay & Almond, 2007).”
Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory (2003, methodology): “This is a testable hypothesis, and it is used in testing Mokken’s MH model. If the three assumptions just discussed hold, then, as Mokken (1971) proved, all pairs of items are nonnegatively correlated for all subgroups of subjects and all subsets of items.”
A Didactic Presentation of Snijders’s lz* Index of Person Fit With Emphasis on Response Model Selection and Ability Estimation (2012, background): “This usually turns to an underdetection of inadequate response patterns, especially when the test length is small to moderate (see also Meijer & Sijtsma, 2001).”
Response Time Effort: A New Measure of Examinee Motivation in Computer-Based Tests (2005, background): “Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) provide a good overview of person-fit research.”
A Systematic Review of the Methodology for Person Fit Research in Item Response Theory: Lessons about Generalizability of Inferences from the Design of Simulation Studies (2013, methodology): “…variants of the very flexible likelihood-based l0 and lz statistics were most frequently investigated followed by the ZU3 statistic as well as the UB and W statistics for the Rasch model; formulas for these statistics can be found in Meijer and Sijtsma (2001) and the appendix of Karabatsos (2003).”