↓ Skip to main content

The use of latent variable mixture models to identify invariant items in test construction

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
The use of latent variable mixture models to identify invariant items in test construction
Published in
Quality of Life Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11136-017-1680-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Sawatzky, Lara B. Russell, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Lisa M. Lix, Jacek Kopec, Bruno D. Zumbo

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used in heterogeneous patient populations. PROM scores may lead to biased inferences when sources of heterogeneity (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and social factors) are ignored. Latent variable mixture models (LVMMs) can be used to examine measurement invariance (MI) when sources of heterogeneity in the population are not known a priori. The goal of this article is to discuss the use of LVMMs to identify invariant items within the context of test construction. The Draper-Lindely-de Finetti (DLD) framework for the measurement of latent variables provides a theoretical context for the use of LVMMs to identify the most invariant items in test construction. In an expository analysis using 39 items measuring daily activities, LVMMs were conducted to compare 1- and 2-class item response theory models (IRT). If the 2-class model had better fit, item-level logistic regression differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted to identify items that were not invariant. These items were removed and LVMMs and DIF testing repeated until all remaining items showed MI. The 39 items had an essentially unidimensional measurement structure. However, a 1-class IRT model resulted in many statistically significant bivariate residuals, indicating suboptimal fit due to remaining local dependence. A 2-class LVMM had better fit. Through subsequent rounds of LVMMs and DIF testing, nine items were identified as being most invariant. The DLD framework and the use of LVMMs have significant potential for advancing theoretical developments and research on item selection and the development of PROMs for heterogeneous populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 4 11%
Mathematics 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,728,341
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#326
of 2,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,764
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#5
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,913 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.