Page 370 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 2
P. 370

IPS279 Rense Lange
                  computation of the item, steps, and grader parameters consistently took less
                  than 0.001 seconds. The updating of the frequency matrices was quite efficient
                  as a complete run with 10,000 students and 250 parameter updates required
                  less than 0.5 seconds on a standard 2014 MacBook Pro laptop computer.

                  4.  Discussion and Conclusion
                      We  found  that  the  present  approach  can  estimate  MFRS  parameters
                  without noticeable delay for plausible numbers of students and raters. For
                  instance, current OBJECTIVE runs with up to 2 million students still require just
                  0.001 seconds to update all item, steps, and rater parameters. An alternative
                  approach  was  used  to  recover  the  model  parameters  as  the  principal
                  eigenvector  of  log(R)  matrices  [8,  9].  However,  this  did  not  improve
                  performance or precision and the results are not further reported.
                      This paper did not address the estimation of the person parameters, nor
                  did it discuss the computation of the diagnostics and quality control statistics
                  [1,  2,  3].  Also,  parallel  processing  as  referred  to  above    has  not  yet  been
                  implemented (the use of Python’s “multiprocessing” libraries is considered for
                  this). This work is progressing and I intend to report further results on future
                  occasions.

                  References:
                  1.  Van der Linden, W.J. & Hambleton, R.K. (1997). Handbook of modern
                      item response theory. New York: Springer.
                  2.  Lange, R. & Lange, X. (2012). Quality control in crowdsourcing: An
                      Objective Measurement Approach to identifying and correcting rater
                      effects in the social evaluation of products and services. AAAI Spring
                      Symposium Series, North America, Stanford, CA, 2012.
                  3.  Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA
                      Press.
                  4.  Linacre, J. M. (2018). Facets® Rasch measurement computer program.
                      Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.
                  5.  Andrich, D., Sheridan, B. E., & Luo, G. (2004). RUMM2020: Rasch
                      unidimensional measurement models [Computer software]. Perth,
                      Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
                  6.  Arce-Ferrer, A. & Lange, R. (2012). Assessing incidence and consequence
                      of rater effects on open-ended scoring. Paper presented at the 8-th
                      Conference of the International Test Commission (ITC). Amsterdam, The
                      Netherlands, July 3-5, 2012.
                  7.  Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and
                      attainment tests. (1960, Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational
                      Research), 1980, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
                  8.  Garner, M. & Engelhard, G.E. (2009). Using paired comparison matrices

                                                                     357 | I S I   W S C   2 0 1 9
   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375