abstract: Dimensionality assessment is an important component of evaluating item response data. Existing approaches to evaluating common assumptions of unidimensionality, such as DIMTEST (Nandakumar & Stout, 1993; Stout, 1987; Stout, Froelich, & Gao, 2001), have been shown to work well under large-scale assessment conditions (e.g., large sample sizes and item pools; see e.g., Froelich & Habing, 2007). It remains to be seen how such procedures perform in the context of small-scale assessments characterized by relatively small sample sizes and/or short tests. The fact that some procedures come with minimum allowable values for characteristics of the data, such as the number of items, may even render them unusable for some small-scale assessments. Other measures designed to assess dimensionality do not come with such limitations and, as such, may perform better under conditions that do not lend themselves to evaluation via statistics that rely on asymptotic theory. The current work aimed to evaluate the performance of one such metric, the standardized generalized dimensionality discrepancy measure (SGDDM; Levy & Svetina, 2011; Levy, Xu, Yel, & Svetina, 2012), under both large- and small-scale testing conditions. A Monte Carlo study was conducted to compare the performance of DIMTEST and the SGDDM statistic in terms of evaluating assumptions of unidimensionality in item response data under a variety of conditions, with an emphasis on the examination of these procedures in small-scale assessments. Similar to previous research, increases in either test length or sample size resulted in increased power. The DIMTEST procedure appeared to be a conservative test of the null hypothesis of unidimensionality. The SGDDM statistic exhibited rejection rates near the nominal rate of .05 under unidimensional conditions, though the reliability of these results may have been less than optimal due to high sampling variability resulting from a relatively limited number of replications. Power values were at or near 1.0 for many of the multidimensional conditions. It was only when the sample size was reduced to N = 100 that the two approaches diverged in performance. Results suggested that both procedures may be appropriate for sample sizes as low as N = 250 and tests as short as J = 12 (SGDDM) or J = 19 (DIMTEST). When used as a diagnostic tool, SGDDM may be appropriate with as few as N = 100 cases combined with J = 12 items. The study was somewhat limited in that it did not include any complex factorial designs, nor were the strength of item discrimination parameters or correlation between factors manipulated. It is recommended that further research be conducted with the inclusion of these factors, as well as an increase in the number of replications when using the SGDDM procedure. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Educational Psychology 2013

abstract: Although models for describing longitudinal data have become increasingly sophisticated, the criticism of even foundational growth curve models remains challenging. The challenge arises from the need to disentangle data-model misfit at multiple and interrelated levels of analysis. Using posterior predictive model checking (PPMC)—a popular Bayesian framework for model criticism—the performance of several discrepancy functions was investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation study. The discrepancy functions of interest included two types of conditional concordance correlation (CCC) functions, two types of R2 functions, two types of standardized generalized dimensionality discrepancy (SGDDM) functions, the likelihood ratio (LR), and the likelihood ratio difference test (LRT). Key outcomes included effect sizes of the design factors on the realized values of discrepancy functions, distributions of posterior predictive p-values (PPP-values), and the proportion of extreme PPP-values. In terms of the realized values, the behavior of the CCC and R2 functions were generally consistent with prior research. However, as diagnostics, these functions were extremely conservative even when some aspect of the data was unaccounted for. In contrast, the conditional SGDDM (SGDDMC), LR, and LRT were generally sensitive to the underspecifications investigated in this work on all outcomes considered. Although the proportions of extreme PPP-values for these functions tended to increase in null situations for non-normal data, this behavior may have reflected the true misfit that resulted from the specification of normal prior distributions. Importantly, the LR and the SGDDMC to a greater extent exhibited some potential for untangling the sources of data-model misfit. Owing to connections of growth curve models to the more fundamental frameworks of multilevel modeling, structural equation models with a mean structure, and Bayesian hierarchical models, the results of the current work may have broader implications that warrant further research. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Educational Psychology 2015

No description available.