Mokken scale analysis (MSA) can be used to assess and build unidimensional scales from an item pool that is sensitive to multiple dimensions. These scales satisfy a set of scaling conditions, one of which follows from the model of monotone homogeneity. An important drawback of the MSA program is that the sequential item selection and scale construction procedure may not find the dominant underlying dimensionality of the responses to a set of items. The authors investigated alternative hierarchical item selection procedures and compared the performance of four hierarchical methods and the sequential clustering method in the MSA context. The results showed that hierarchical clustering methods can improve the search process of the dominant dimensionality of a data matrix. In particular, the complete linkage and scale linkage methods were promising in finding the dimensionality of the item response data from a set of items.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bacon, D. R. (2001). An evaluation of cluster analytic approaches to initial model specification. Structural Equation Modelling, 8(3), 379-429.
2.
Becht, M. C., Poortinga, Y. H., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2001). Crying across countries. In A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets & R. R. Cornelius (Eds.), Adult crying: A biopsychosocial approach (pp. 135-158). Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
3.
Douglas, J., Kim, H. R., Roussos, L., Stout, W. F., & Zhang, J. (1999). LSAT dimensionality analysis for the December 1991, June 1992, and October 1992 administrations. Newton, PA: LSAT.
4.
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analysis. London: Arnold/Oxford University Press.
5.
Grayson, D. A. (1988). Two-group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika, 53, 383-392.
6.
Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazersfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 60-90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multi-dimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 337-352.
8.
Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W., & Junker, B. W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62, 331-347.
9.
Holland, P. W., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1986). Conditional association and unidimensionality in monotone latent variable models. The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1523-1543.
10.
Hunter, J. E. (1973). Methods of ordering the correlation matrix to facilitate visual inspection and preliminary cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 51-61.
11.
Ip, E. H. (2001). Testing for local dependency in dichotomous and polytomous item response models. Psychometrika, 66, 109-132.
12.
Loevinger, J. (1948). The technique of homogenous tests compared with some aspects of “scale analysis” and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 507-530.
13.
McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99-114.
14.
Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. Berlin: de Gruyter.
15.
Molenaar, I. W. (1982). Mokken scaling revisited. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 3(8), 145-164.
16.
Molenaar, I. W. (1991). A weighted loevinger H-coefficient extending the Mokken scaling to multicategory items. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 12(37), 97-117.
17.
Molenaar, I. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2000). Users manual MSP5 for Windows: A program for Mokken scale analysis for polytomous items [Software manual]. Groningen, the Netherlands: iec ProGAMMA.
18.
Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). Refinements of Stout’s procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 41-68.
19.
Reveille, W. (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 57-74.
20.
Roussos, L. A., Stout, W. F., & Marden, J. I. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 1-30.
21.
Samejima, F. (2000). Logistic positive exponent family of models: Virtue of asymmetrical item characteristic curves. Psychometrika, 65, 319-335.
22.
Scheirs, J. G. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). The study of crying: Some methodological considerations and a comparison of methods for analyzing questionnaires. In J. J. M. Vingerhoets & R. R. Cornelius (Eds.), Adult crying: A biopsychosocial approach (pp. 277-298). Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
23.
Schweizer, K. (1991). Classifying variables on the basis of disaggregate correlations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 435-455.
24.
Sijtsma, K. (1998). Methodology review: Nonparametric IRT approaches to the analysis of dichotomous item scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 3-31.
25.
Sijtsma, K., & van der Ark, L. A. (2001). Progress in NIRT analysis of polytomous item scores: Dilemmas and practical solutions. In A. Boomsma, M. A. J. van Duijn, & T. A. B. Snijders (Eds.), Essays on item response theory (pp. 297-318). New York: Springer.
26.
Sokal, R. R., & Michener, C. D. (1958). A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 38, 1409-1438.
27.
SPSS. (1998). SPSSX user’s guide. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
van Abswoude, A. A. H., van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2004). A comparative study on test data dimensionality procedures under nonparametric IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(1), 3-24.
29.
Zhang, J., & Stout, W. F. (1999a). Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika, 64, 129-152.
30.
Zhang, J., & Stout, W. F. (1999b). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213-249.
