Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stone, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yeh, C.-C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessing the Dimensionality and Factor Structure of Multiple-Choice Exams

An Empirical Comparison of Methods Using the Multistate Bar Examination

Clement A. Stone

Chien-Chi Yeh

University of Pittsburgh

Examination of a test's internal structure can be used to identify what domains or dimensions are being measured, identify relationships between the dimensions, provide evidence for hypothesized multidimensionality and test score interpretations, and identify construct-irrelevant variance. The purpose of this research is to provide a methodological comparison of three methods for assessing the dimensionality and factor structure for binary scored exams in which guessing may be operating. The factor analytic methods in Mplus, NOHARM, and TESTFACT are compared in the context of analyzing the Multistate Bar Examination, a multiple-choice exam reflecting a number of complex integrated content domains. Results indicate that the methods support similar factor solutions. However, support for solutions with more factors and more indicators per factor is only obtained when guessing is modeled. The implications for evaluating the internal structure of multiple-choice tests are discussed.

Key Words: dimensionality • NOHARM • TESTFACT • Mplus

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66, No. 2, 193-214 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282483
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
T. K. Snow and T.C. Oshima
A Comparison of Unidimensional and Three-Dimensional Differential Item Functioning Analysis Using Two-Dimensional Data
Educational and Psychological Measurement, October 1, 2009; 69(5): 732 - 747.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. E. DeMars
``Guessing'' Parameter Estimates for Multidimensional Item Response Theory Models
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 433 - 446.
[Abstract] [PDF]