C.Sato(matrix,
NA.method = "NPModel", Save.MatImp = FALSE,
IP = NULL, IRT.PModel = "2PL", Ability = NULL, Ability.PModel = "ML",
mu = 0, sigma = 1)Cstar(matrix,
NA.method = "NPModel", Save.MatImp = FALSE,
IP = NULL, IRT.PModel = "2PL", Ability = NULL, Ability.PModel = "ML",
mu = 0, sigma = 1)
"Hotdeck", "NPModel" (default), and "PModel".IP=NULL). The options available are "1PL", "2PL" (default), and "3PL".matrix.
In case no ability parameters are available then Ability=NULL.Ability=NULL). The options available are "ML" (default), "BM", and "WL".method="BM". Default is 0.method="BM". Default is 1.NA.method="PModel", otherwise NULL.NA.method="PModel", otherwise NULL.NA.method="PModel", otherwise NULL.NA.method="PModel", otherwise NULL.Harnisch and Linn (1981) proposed a modified version of the caution statistic which bounds the caution statistic between 0 and 1 (also referred to as C* or MCI in the literature): $$Cstar = \frac{cov(x_n^*,p)-cov(x_n,p)}{cov(x_n^*,p)-cov(x_n',p)},$$ where $x_n'$ is the reversed Guttman vector containing correct answers for the hardest items (i.e., with the smallest proportion-correct values) only. Cstar is sensitive to the so-called Guttman errors. A Guttman error is a pair of scores (0,1), where the 0-score pertains to the easiest item and the 1-score pertains to the hardest item. Cstar ranges between 0 (perfect Guttman vector) and 1 (reversed Guttman error), thus larger values indicate potential aberrant response behavior.
These statistics are not computed for rows of matrix that consist of only 0s or only 1s (NA values are returned instead).
Missing values in matrix are imputed by one of three single imputation methods: Hotdeck imputation (NA.method = "Hotdeck"), nonparametric model imputation (NA.method = "NPModel"), and parametric model imputation (NA.method = "PModel"); see Zhang and Walker (2008).
IRT.PModel = "1PL","2PL", or"3PL"). Item parameters (IP) and ability parameters (Ability) may be provided for this purpose (otherwise the algorithm finds estimates for these parameters).Karabatsos, G. (2003) Comparing the Aberrant Response Detection Performance of Thirty-Six Person-Fit Statistics. Applied Measurement In Education, 16(4), 277--298.
Meijer, R. R., and Sijtsma, K. (2001) Methodology review: Evaluating person fit. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(2), 107--135.
Sato, T. (1975) The construction and interpretation of S-P tables. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho.
Zhang, B., and Walker, C. M. (2008) Impact of missing data on person-model fit and person trait estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32(6), 466--479.
Ht# Load the inadequacy scale data (dichotomous item scores):
data(InadequacyData)
# Compute the C.Sato scores:
C.out <- C.Sato(InadequacyData)
# Compute the Cstar scores:
Cstar.out <- Cstar(InadequacyData)Run the code above in your browser using DataLab