A study of alternative approaches to non-normal latent trait distributions in item response theory models used for health outcome measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often unrealistic to assume normally distributed latent traits in the measurement of health outcomes. If normality is violated, the item response theory (IRT) models that are used to calibrate questionnaires may yield parameter estimates that are biased. Recently, IRT models were developed for dealing with specific deviations from normality, such as zero-inflation (“excess zeros”) and skewness. However, these models have not yet been evaluated under conditions representative of item bank development for health outcomes, characterized by a large number of polytomous items. A simulation study was performed to compare the bias in parameter estimates of the graded response model (GRM), polytomous extensions of the zero-inflated mixture IRT (ZIM-GRM), and Davidian Curve IRT (DC-GRM). In the case of zero-inflation, the GRM showed high bias overestimating discrimination parameters and yielding estimates of threshold parameters that were too high and too close to one another, while ZIM-GRM showed no bias. In the case of skewness, the GRM and DC-GRM showed little bias with the GRM showing slightly better results. Consequences for the development of health outcome measures are discussed.
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 | 0.248 | 0.553 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".