autoFC (Q125264): Difference between revisions
From MaRDI portal
Added link to MaRDI item. |
|||||||||||||||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||||||||||||||
Property / last update | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Property / last update: 7 June 2021 / rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Item Desirability Matching in Forced-choice Test Construction / rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Item Response Modeling of Forced-Choice Questionnaires / rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / software version identifier | |||||||||||||||
0.2.0.1001 | |||||||||||||||
Property / software version identifier: 0.2.0.1001 / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / software version identifier: 0.2.0.1001 / qualifier | |||||||||||||||
publication date: 17 February 2024
| |||||||||||||||
Property / last update | |||||||||||||||
17 February 2024
| |||||||||||||||
Property / last update: 17 February 2024 / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / description | |||||||||||||||
Forced-choice (FC) response has gained increasing popularity and interest for its resistance to faking when well-designed (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>). To established well-designed FC scales, typically each item within a block should measure different trait and have similar level of social desirability (Zhang et al., 2020 <doi:10.1177/1094428119836486>). Recent study also suggests the importance of high inter-item agreement of social desirability between items within a block (Pavlov et al., 2021 <doi:10.31234/osf.io/hmnrc>). In addition to this, FC developers may also need to maximize factor loading differences (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) or minimize item location differences (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>) depending on scoring models. Decision of which items should be assigned to the same block, termed item pairing, is thus critical to the quality of an FC test. This pairing process is essentially an optimization process which is currently carried out manually. However, given that we often need to simultaneously meet multiple objectives, manual pairing becomes impractical or even not feasible once the number of latent traits and/or number of items per trait are relatively large. To address these problems, autoFC is developed as a practical tool for facilitating the automatic construction of FC tests (Li et al., 2022 <doi:10.1177/01466216211051726>), essentially exempting users from the burden of manual item pairing and reducing the computational costs and biases induced by simple ranking methods. Given characteristics of each item (and item responses), FC measures can be constructed either automatically based on user-defined pairing criteria and weights, or based on exact specifications of each block (i.e., blueprint; see Li et al., 2024 <doi:10.1177/10944281241229784>). Users can also generate simulated responses based on the Thurstonian Item Response Theory model (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) and predict trait scores of simulated/actual respondents based on an estimated model. | |||||||||||||||
Property / description: Forced-choice (FC) response has gained increasing popularity and interest for its resistance to faking when well-designed (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>). To established well-designed FC scales, typically each item within a block should measure different trait and have similar level of social desirability (Zhang et al., 2020 <doi:10.1177/1094428119836486>). Recent study also suggests the importance of high inter-item agreement of social desirability between items within a block (Pavlov et al., 2021 <doi:10.31234/osf.io/hmnrc>). In addition to this, FC developers may also need to maximize factor loading differences (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) or minimize item location differences (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>) depending on scoring models. Decision of which items should be assigned to the same block, termed item pairing, is thus critical to the quality of an FC test. This pairing process is essentially an optimization process which is currently carried out manually. However, given that we often need to simultaneously meet multiple objectives, manual pairing becomes impractical or even not feasible once the number of latent traits and/or number of items per trait are relatively large. To address these problems, autoFC is developed as a practical tool for facilitating the automatic construction of FC tests (Li et al., 2022 <doi:10.1177/01466216211051726>), essentially exempting users from the burden of manual item pairing and reducing the computational costs and biases induced by simple ranking methods. Given characteristics of each item (and item responses), FC measures can be constructed either automatically based on user-defined pairing criteria and weights, or based on exact specifications of each block (i.e., blueprint; see Li et al., 2024 <doi:10.1177/10944281241229784>). Users can also generate simulated responses based on the Thurstonian Item Response Theory model (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) and predict trait scores of simulated/actual respondents based on an estimated model. / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / author | |||||||||||||||
Property / author: Mengtong Li / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / author | |||||||||||||||
Property / author: Tianjun Sun / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / author | |||||||||||||||
Property / author: Bo Zhang / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / copyright license | |||||||||||||||
Property / copyright license: GNU General Public License, version 3.0 / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: dplyr / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: irrCAC / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: lavaan / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: MASS / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: SimDesign / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: thurstonianIRT / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: MplusAutomation / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: glue / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports | |||||||||||||||
Property / imports: tidyr / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Though Forced, Still Valid: Psychometric Equivalence of Forced-Choice and Single-Statement Measures / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Item Desirability Matching in Forced-choice Test Construction / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Item Response Modeling of Forced-Choice Questionnaires / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: autoFC: An R Package for Automatic Item Pairing in Forced-Choice Test Construction / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work | |||||||||||||||
Property / cites work: Mixed-Keying or Desirability-Matching in the Construction of Forced-Choice Measures? An Empirical Investigation and Practical Recommendations / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / depends on software | |||||||||||||||
Property / depends on software: R / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
Property / depends on software: R / qualifier | |||||||||||||||
software version identifier: ≥ 2.10 | |||||||||||||||
Property / MaRDI profile type | |||||||||||||||
Property / MaRDI profile type: MaRDI software profile / rank | |||||||||||||||
Normal rank | |||||||||||||||
links / mardi / name | links / mardi / name | ||||||||||||||
Latest revision as of 18:56, 12 March 2024
Automatic Construction of Forced-Choice Tests
Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
---|---|---|---|
English | autoFC |
Automatic Construction of Forced-Choice Tests |
Statements
17 February 2024
0 references
Forced-choice (FC) response has gained increasing popularity and interest for its resistance to faking when well-designed (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>). To established well-designed FC scales, typically each item within a block should measure different trait and have similar level of social desirability (Zhang et al., 2020 <doi:10.1177/1094428119836486>). Recent study also suggests the importance of high inter-item agreement of social desirability between items within a block (Pavlov et al., 2021 <doi:10.31234/osf.io/hmnrc>). In addition to this, FC developers may also need to maximize factor loading differences (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) or minimize item location differences (Cao & Drasgow, 2019 <doi:10.1037/apl0000414>) depending on scoring models. Decision of which items should be assigned to the same block, termed item pairing, is thus critical to the quality of an FC test. This pairing process is essentially an optimization process which is currently carried out manually. However, given that we often need to simultaneously meet multiple objectives, manual pairing becomes impractical or even not feasible once the number of latent traits and/or number of items per trait are relatively large. To address these problems, autoFC is developed as a practical tool for facilitating the automatic construction of FC tests (Li et al., 2022 <doi:10.1177/01466216211051726>), essentially exempting users from the burden of manual item pairing and reducing the computational costs and biases induced by simple ranking methods. Given characteristics of each item (and item responses), FC measures can be constructed either automatically based on user-defined pairing criteria and weights, or based on exact specifications of each block (i.e., blueprint; see Li et al., 2024 <doi:10.1177/10944281241229784>). Users can also generate simulated responses based on the Thurstonian Item Response Theory model (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011 <doi:10.1177/0013164410375112>) and predict trait scores of simulated/actual respondents based on an estimated model.
0 references
0 references
0 references