多面Rasch模型不同研究设计估计精度比较

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.05.004

心理研究

2025, Vol. 18

Issue (5): 413-418 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.05.004

基础研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

多面Rasch模型不同研究设计估计精度比较

陈清琳^1,2, 闫德胜³, 黎光明¹

1 华南师范大学心理学院,华南师范大学心理应用研究中心,广州 510663;
2 广州市白云区明德小学, 广州 510407;
3 内蒙古民族幼儿师范高等专科学校,鄂尔多斯 017000

The estimation accuracy comparison of different types of rating designs under many-facet Rasch model

CHEN Qinglin^1,2, YAN Desheng³, LI Guangming¹

1 School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University,Guangzhou 510631;
2 Mingde Primary School of Baiyun District, Guangzhou 510407;
3 Inner Mongolia Minzu Preschool Education college, Ordos 017000

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (793 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要采用模拟研究的方法,探究了在三种被试数量下,交叉设计、嵌套设计和混合设计所估计的评分者宽严程度、项目难度和被试能力等参数估计的精确性。使用R软件模拟数据;使用FACET软件进行参数估计。结果表明：（1）交叉设计下评分者宽严度参数估计的精确性最好;（2）嵌套设计下项目难度参数和被试能力均值参数的估计精确性最好;（3）除被试能力标准差参数外,其余各参数估计的精确性良好;（4）被试数量越大,参数估计精确性越高。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	陈清琳
	闫德胜
	黎光明

关键词 ：多面Rasch模型, 交叉设计, 嵌套设计, 混合设计, 模拟研究

基金资助:2024年度内蒙古自治区社科规划项目（2024NDC220）

通讯作者: 黎光明,男,教授,博士,硕士生导师。Email：lgm2004100@sina.com

引用本文:

陈清琳, 闫德胜, 黎光明. 多面Rasch模型不同研究设计估计精度比较[J]. 心理研究, 2025, 18(5): 413-418.
CHEN Qinglin, YAN Desheng, LI Guangming. The estimation accuracy comparison of different types of rating designs under many-facet Rasch model. Psychological Research, 2025, 18(5): 413-418.

链接本文:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.05.004 或 http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/Y2025/V18/I5/413

[1] 姚若松, 赵葆楠, 刘泽, 苗群鹰. (2013). 无领导小组讨论的多侧面Rasch模型应用.心理学报, (09), 1039-1049.
[2] Fishman, G. S. (1972). Bias considerations in simulation experiments.Operations Research, 20(4), 785-790.
[3] He T. H., Gou W. J., Chien Y. C., Chen I. S., & Chang S. M. (2013). Multi-faceted Rasch measurement and bias patterns in EFL writing performance assessment.Psychological Reports, 112(2), 469-485.
[4] Hombo C. M., Donoghue J. R., & Thayer D. T. (2001). A simulation study of the effect of rater designs on ability estimation.Educational Testing Service Research Report Series, 2001(1), 1-41.
[5] Ilhan, M. N. (2016). A comparison of the results of many-facet Rasch analyses based on crossed and judge pair designs.Educational Sciences Theory and Practice, 2016(2), 579-601.
[6] Linacre J. M.(1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
[7] Lunz, M. E., & Stahl, J. A. (1993). The effect of rater severity on person ability measure: A Rasch model analysis.The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(4), 311-317.
[8] Putka D. J., Le H., McCloy R. A., & Diaz T. (2008). Ill-structured measurement designs in organizational research: Implications for estimating interrater reliability.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 959-981.
[9] Schaefer, E. (2008). Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment.Language Testing, 25(4), 465-493.
[10] Schumacker R. E. (1999). Many-facet Rasch analysis with crossed, nested, and mixed designs.Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(4), 323-338.
[11] Sinharay, S., & Holland, P. W. (2007). Is it necessary to make anchor tests miniversions of the tests being equated or can some restrictions be relaxed? Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(3), 249-275.
[12] Wang, W. C., & Qiu, X. L. (2013). A multidimensional and multilevel extension of a random-effect approach to subjective judgment in rating scales.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(3), 398-427.
[13] Wang, Z. & Yao, L. (2013). The effects of rater severity and rater distribution on examinees' ability estimation for constructed-response items.ETS Research Report Series, 2013(2), 1-22.
[14] Wind, S. A., & Jones, E. (2019). The effects of incomplete rating designs in combination with rater effects.Journal of Educational Measurement, 56(1), 76-100.
[15] Winke P., Gass S., & Myford C. (2013). Raters' L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance.Language Testing, 30(2), 231-252.