applied psych test design: part f--psychometric/technical statistical analysis: internal

The Art and Science of Test Development—Part F

Psychometric/technical statistical analysis: Internal

The basic structure and content of this presentation is grounded extensively on the test development procedures developed by Dr. Richard Woodcock

Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.

Educational Psychologist

Research DirectorWoodcock-Muñoz Foundation

Part A: Planning, development frameworks & domain/test specification blueprints

Part B: Test and Item Development

Part C: Use of Rasch Technology

Part D: Develop norm (standardization) plan

Part E: Calculate norms and derived scores

Part F: Psychometric/technical and statistical analysis: Internal

Part G: Psychometric/technical and statistical analysis: External

The Art and Science of Test Development

The above titled topic is presented in a series of sequential PowerPoint modules. It is strongly recommended that the modules (A-G) be viewed in sequence.

The current module is designated by red bold font lettering

“In god we trust….all others must show data” (unknown source)

Test authors and publishers have standards-based

responsibility to provide supporting psychometric technical information re:

tests and battery

Typically in the form of a series of technical chapters in manual or a

separate technical manual

Calculate psychometric/measurement statistics for technical manual/chapters

Use Joint Test Standards as a guide

g

Gf Gv Glr Gs

Gc Gsm Ga

Theoretical Domain - CHC

Measurement or empirical domain

Internal evidence is focused on

relations between and

among variables

(measures or latent

constructs) within the designed battery

Calculate summary statistics (n, means, SDs, SEM) and reliabilities for all tests and clusters by technical age groups

etc…

etc…

Special reliability analyses required for speeded tests

Traditional test-retest reliability analysis

Special reliability analyses for all tests

More complex repeated measures reliability analysis(McArdle and Woodcock, 1989—see WJ-R Technical Manual)

Provide evidence based on internal structure (internal validity)

Structural (Internal) Stage of Test Development

Purpose Examine the internal relations among the measures used to operationalize the theoretical construct domain (i.e., intelligence or cognitive abilities)

Questions asked Do the observed measures “behave” in a manner consistent with the theoretical domain definition of intelligence?

Method and concepts Internal domain studies Item/subscale intercorrelations Exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis

Characteristics of strong test validity program

• Measures co-vary in a manner consistent with the intended theoretical structure

• Factors reflect trait rather than method variance• Items/measures are representative of the empirical

domain

etc…

Structural/internal validity evidence: Test and cluster inter-correlation matrices by technical age groups

etc…

Structural/internal validity

Confirmatory factoranalysis by major

age groups

(exploratory factor analysis if not

theory-driven test blueprint)

Structural/internal validity Confirmatory factoranalysis by major age groups

(exploratory factor analysis if not theory-driven test blueprint)

.67

.53

.40

.42

.43

Structural (Internal) Stage of Test Development

Purpose Examine the internal relations among the measures used to operationalize the theoretical construct domain (i.e., intelligence or cognitive abilities)

Questions asked Do the observed measures “behave” in a manner consistent with the theoretical domain definition of intelligence?

Method and concepts Exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis

Characteristics of strong test validity program

• The theoretical/empirical model is deemed plausible (especially when compared against other competing models) based on substantive and statistical criteria

Fit StatisticsModels Chi-square df AIC RMSEA

WJ III CHC 7-factor 13189.16 536 13377.16 0.056 (0.055-0.057)Gc/Gsm/Gs/Gv+Gf (WAIS 4-factor) 15113.99 537 15301.00 0.060 (0.059-0.061)Gc/Gsm/Gq/Gv+Gf (SB IV 4-factor) 20379.58 537 20565.58 0.070 (0.069-0.071)Gf-Gc Dichotomous (KAIT) 23145.12 549 23307.12 0.074 (0.073-0.075)PASS 4-factor * 25198.46 542 25374.46 0.077 (0.078-0.079)g single factor 65314.78 1170 65524.78 0.086 (0.085-0.086)Null model 215827.54 1219 215939.54 0.153 (0.153-0.154)

The WJ III factor structure model provided the best fit to the data when compared to six alternative models

The conclusion was the same across 5 age-differentiated samples

Structural/internal validity: Confirmatory factoranalysis model comparisons by major age groups

WJ III General Intellectual Ability (GIA) as a differentially weighted measure of g (general intelligence)

Therefore need to provide internal validity evidence for test g-weights

Tests at this end are weighted (“counted”) more in the GIA score

1

GIA(g)

Internal validity evidence example: g-loadings for differentially weighted General Intellectual Ability cluster

Provide evidence based on internal structure: Developmental evidence?

Developmental evidence in the form of differential growth curves of measures

Provide Test Fairness Evidence

=

White Non-White


Evaluating structural invariance with Multiple Group CFA

=

Male Female



=

Hispanic Non-Hispanic



Test fairness evidence: Item Level Analyses: Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

•Male/Female

•White/Non-White

•Hispanic/Non- Hispanic

•Male/Female

•White/Non-White

•Hispanic/Non- Hispanic

Results combined with results from Bias

Sensitivity Review Panels

Test fairness evidence: Item Level Analyses: Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

Lack of rigor and quality control in all prior/earlier stages will “rattle through the data” and rear its ugly head when performing the final statistical analysis

Shorts cuts in prior stages will “bite you in in the ____” as you attempt to perform final statistical analysis

Data screening, data screening, data screening!!!!……. prior to do performing final statistical analysis

• Compute extensive descriptive statistical analysis for all variables (e.g., histograms, scatterplots, box-whisker plots, etc.)

• More than means and SD’s. Also calculate median, skew, kurtosis, n-tiles, etc.

Deliberately planned and sophisticated “front end” data collection short-cuts (e.g., matrix sampling) introduce an extreme level of “back end” complexity to routine statistical/psychometric analysis

Know your limits, level of expertise, and skills. Even those with extensive test development experience often need access to trusted measurement/statistical consultants (cont. next slide)

Don’t be seduced and completely reliant on factor analysis as the primary internal/structural validity tool

• An example: Inability of CFA to differentiate closely related latent constructs (e.g., Gc and Reading/Writing—Grw) doesn’t prove they are the same. Need to examine other evidence (e.g., very different developmental growth curves for Gc and Grw)

Published statistics/psychometric information needs to be based on final publication length tests

• Often need to use test-length correction formula’s (e.g., KR-21) for test reliabilities

• Correlations between short /and or long norming versions of a test, that differ in test length (number of items) from publication length test, may need special adjustments/corrections.

Back up, back up, back up!!!!!!!!!! Don’t let a dead hard drive or computer destroy your work and progress. Do it constantly. Build redundancy into your files and people skill sets

Sad fact: Majority of test users do NOT pay attention to the fancy and special psychometric/statistical analysis you report in technical chapters or manuals. Be prepared for post-publication education via other methods.

Post-manual publication technical reports of special/sophisticated analyses are good when publication time-line pressures dictate making difficult decisions.

Exploratory-driven confirmatory factor analysis is often used by test developers to explore unexpected characteristics of tests (often called “model generation modeling” in SEM/CFA literature)

Different approaches to DIF (differential item functioning)

Multiple group CFA to test invariance (by age, by gender, by……..)

• Different degrees of measurement invariance can be tested

Traditional definition of psychometric bias and appropriate/inappropriate statistical methods

Equating (e.g., Form A/B) methods and evidence

Methods for calculating prediction models that account for regression to the mean and that are sensitive to developmental (age) X content interactions

Complex repeated measures reliability analyses to tease out test stability, internal consistency, and trait stability sources of score variance (see WJ-R Technical Manual)

End of Part F

Additional steps in test development process will be presented in subsequent modules as they are developed