Model Selection of Nested and Non-Nested Item Response Models Using Vuong Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we apply Vuong's general approach of model selection to the comparison of nested and non-nested unidimensional and multidimensional item response theory (IRT) models. Vuong's approach of model selection is useful because it allows for formal statistical tests of both nested and non-nested models. However, only the test of non-nested models has been applied in the context of IRT models to date. After summarizing the statistical theory underlying the tests, we investigate the performance of all three distinct Vuong tests in the context of IRT models using simulation studies and real data. In the non-nested case we observed that the tests can reliably distinguish between the graded response model and the generalized partial credit model. In the nested case, we observed that the tests typically perform as well as or sometimes better than the traditional likelihood ratio test. Based on these results, we argue that Vuong's approach provides a useful set of tools for researchers and practitioners to effectively compare competing nested and non-nested IRT models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".