Comparison of parameter estimation approaches for multi-unidimensional pairwise preference tests.

Abstract

Multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) testing has been proposed as a way of reducing response biases in noncognitive measurement. Although early item response theory (IRT) research focused on illustrating that person parameter estimates with normative properties could be obtained using various MFC models and formats, more recent attention has been devoted to exploring the processes involved in test construction and how that influences MFC scores. This research compared two approaches for estimating multi-unidimensional pairwise preference model (MUPP; Stark et al., 2005) parameters based on the generalized graded unfolding model (GGUM; Roberts et al., 2000). More specifically, we compared the efficacy of statement and person parameter estimation based on a "two-step" process, developed by Stark et al. (2005), with a more recently developed "direct" estimation approach (Lee et al., 2019) in a Monte Carlo study that also manipulated test length, test dimensionality, sample size, and the correlations between generating person parameters for each dimension. Results indicated that the two approaches had similar scoring accuracy, although the two-step approach had better statement parameter recovery than the direct approach. Limitations, implications for MFC test construction and scoring, and recommendations for future MFC research and practice are discussed.