Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Analyzing the Maximum Likelihood Score Estimation Method with Fences in ca-MST
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education ( IF 0.8 ) Pub Date : 2019-10-19 , DOI: 10.21449/ijate.634091
Melek Gülşah ŞAHİN 1 , Nagihan BOZTUNÇ ÖZTÜRK 2
Affiliation  

New statistical methods are being added to the literature as a result of scientific developments each and every day. This study aims at investigating one of these, Maximum Likelihood Score Estimation with Fences (MLEF) method, in ca-MST. The results obtained from this study will contribute to both national and international literature since there is no such study on the applicability of MLEF method in ca-MST. In line with the aim of this study, 48 conditions (4 module lengths (5-10-15-20) x 2 panel designs (1-3; 1-3-3) x 2 ability distribution (normal-uniform) x 3 ability estimation methods (MLEF-MLE-EAP) were simulated and the data obtained from the simulation were interpreted with correlation, RMSE and AAD as an implication of measurement precision; and with conditional bias calculation in order to show the changes in each ability level. This study is a post-hoc simulation study using the data from TIMSS 2015 at the 8th grade in mathematics. “xxIRT” R package program and MSTGen simulation software tool were used in the study. As a result, it can be said that MLEF, as a new ability estimation method, is superior to MLE method in all conditions. EAP estimation method gives the best results in terms of the measurement precision based on correlation, RMSE and AAD values, whereas the results gained via MLEF estimation method are pretty close to those in EAP estimation method. MLE proves to be less biased in ability estimation, especially in extreme ability levels, when compared to EAP ability estimation method.

中文翻译:

在ca-MST中用栅栏分析最大似然评分估计方法

由于每天的科学发展,新的统计方法被添加到文献中。这项研究旨在研究ca-MST中的其中一种方法,即用栅栏的最大可能性得分估计(MLEF)方法。由于尚无关于MLEF方法在ca-MST中的适用性的研究,因此从这项研究中获得的结果将有助于国内和国际文献。符合本研究的目的,48个条件(4个模块长度(5-10-15-20)x 2面板设计(1-3; 1-3-3)x 2能力分布(法线均匀)x 3模拟了能力估计方法(MLEF-MLE-EAP),并通过相关性,RMSE和AAD解释了从模拟中获得的数据,这意味着测量精度;并使用条件偏差计算来显示每个能力水平的变化。这项研究是事后模拟研究,使用的是8年级TIMSS 2015的数据。研究中使用了“ xxIRT” R软件包程序和MSTGen仿真软件工具。结果,可以说,MLEF作为一种新的能力估计方法,在所有情况下都优于MLE方法。EAP估计方法基于相关性,RMSE和AAD值在测量精度方面提供了最佳结果,而通过MLEF估计方法获得的结果与EAP估计方法中的结果非常接近。与EAP能力评估方法相比,MLE在能力评估方面(尤其是在极端能力水平上)被证明较少偏见。研究中使用了“ xxIRT” R软件包程序和MSTGen仿真软件工具。结果,可以说,MLEF作为一种新的能力估计方法,在所有情况下都优于MLE方法。EAP估计方法基于相关性,RMSE和AAD值在测量精度方面提供了最佳结果,而通过MLEF估计方法获得的结果与EAP估计方法中的结果非常接近。与EAP能力评估方法相比,MLE在能力评估方面(尤其是在极端能力水平上)被证明较少偏见。研究中使用了“ xxIRT” R软件包程序和MSTGen仿真软件工具。结果,可以说,MLEF作为一种新的能力估计方法,在所有情况下都优于MLE方法。EAP估计方法基于相关性,RMSE和AAD值在测量精度方面提供了最佳结果,而通过MLEF估计方法获得的结果与EAP估计方法中的结果非常接近。与EAP能力评估方法相比,MLE在能力评估方面(尤其是在极端能力水平上)被证明较少偏见。而通过MLEF估计方法获得的结果与EAP估计方法中的结果非常接近。与EAP能力评估方法相比,MLE在能力评估方面(尤其是在极端能力水平上)被证明较少偏见。而通过MLEF估计方法获得的结果与EAP估计方法中的结果非常接近。与EAP能力评估方法相比,MLE在能力评估方面(尤其是在极端能力水平上)被证明较少偏见。
更新日期:2019-10-19
down
wechat
bug