Item Analysis by the Hierarchical Generalized Linear Model.

By Akihito Kamata. 2001

267 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Food Science, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d4ef6d54e47c78cf525793818477a24f3bb19358

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Food Science

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

A Synthesis of 15 Years of Research on DIF in Language Testing: Methodological Advances, Challenges, and Recommendations (2007, methodology): “As a consequence, hierarchical models such as hierarchical logistic regression models (eg, Swanson, Clauser, & Case, 2002 ) and hierarchical IRT models (eg, Kamata, 2001 ) can be specified with relative ease.”
Multilevel and Single-Level Models for Measured and Latent Variables When Data Are Clustered (2016, methodology): “Although there are many other applications of multilevel models in assessment such as multilevel item response theory models with items nested within persons and individuals nested within raters (Kamata, 2002), this article focuses on the types of research questions just specified.”
Estimating the Multilevel Rasch Model: With the lme4 Package (2007, methodology): “A second option is to incorporate random effects in the structural model to aptly model the various dependencies Johnson and Raudenbush (2006); Kamata (2001).”
Formulating the Rasch Differential Item Functioning Model Under the Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation Context and Its Comparison With Mantel–Haenszel Procedure in Short Test and Small Sample Conditions (2011, methodology): “From the perspective of IRT as being a multilevel model (e.g., Adams, Wilson, & Wu, 1997; Kamata, 2001; Rijimen, Tuerlinckx, De Beock, & Kuppens, 2003; Skrondal, & Rabe-Hesketh, 2004; Van den Noortgate, De Boeck, & Meulders, 2003; Van den Noortgate & Paek, 2004), Equations (2) and (3) represent a ra”
Assessing and Explaining Differential Item Functioning Using Logistic Mixed Models (2005, methodology): “It has been demonstrated before that IRT models can typically be regarded as logistic mixed models (Adams, Wilson, & Wu, 1997; Kamata, 2001; Mellenbergh, 1994).”
Comparing Self-Report to Official Measures of Inmate Misconduct (2014, methodology): “We also estimated a hierarchical measurement model with items (self-report and official misconduct) nested within individuals, who were nested within facilities (see, e.g. Kamata, 2001; Kirk, 2006; Kuo, Mohler, Raudenbush, & Earls, 2000; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).”
Cross-Classification Multilevel Logistic Models in Psychometrics (2003, methodology): “A reformulation of Equation 2 illustrates that the MML formulation of the Rasch model can be regarded as a hierarchical two-level logistic model (Kamata, 2001).”
A Multilevel Mixture IRT Model With an Application to DIF (2010, background): “…item response data that contain hierarchical structure, thus enabling a researcher to study the impact of different predictors such as schools and curriculum on the lower level units such as students (e.g., Fox & Glas, 2001; Kamata, 2001; Maier, 2001, 2002; Rabe-Hesketh, Skrondal, & Pickles, 2004).”