2000
DOI: 10.1111/1467-985x.00177
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weighting for Item Non-Response in Attitude Scales by Using Latent Variable Models with Covariates

Abstract: We discuss the use of latent variable models with observed covariates for computing response propensities for sample respondents. A response propensity score is often used to weight item and unit responders to account for item and unit non-response and to obtain adjusted means and proportions. In the context of attitude scaling, we discuss computing response propensity scores by using latent variable models for binary or nominal polytomous manifest items with covariates. Our models allow the response propensit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
50
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…to establish a measurement model for a so-called latent response propensity θ. The person estimators of θ can be used to compute weights for each observation (Moustaki & Knott, 2000). Alternatively, the measurement model for the response propensity θ has been added to the measurement model for the ability variable of interest, ξ.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…to establish a measurement model for a so-called latent response propensity θ. The person estimators of θ can be used to compute weights for each observation (Moustaki & Knott, 2000). Alternatively, the measurement model for the response propensity θ has been added to the measurement model for the ability variable of interest, ξ.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MIRT models with either a between-item-multidimensional structure or a within-item-multidimensional structure have been introduced to account for nonignorable missing data. Another possibility is to avoid modeling a second latent variable by regarding the missing value code as an additional response category in a nominal response model (Moustaki & Knott, 2000). The basic idea of these models involves the specification of a selection model (Heckman, 1979) that accounts for the stochastic dependency between the latent proficiency ξ and the occurrence of missing data.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rapid responders (DeMars and Wise 2010) who may not provide reliable response data can potentially be identified using this data. Nonresponse models (Glas and Pimentel 2008;Moustaki and Knott 2000;Rose et al 2010) can be used to gain a deeper understanding of situations in which certain types of respondents tend not to provide any data on at least some of the items. Elaborate response-time models that integrate latency and accuracy (Klein Entink et al 2009;Lee 2008) can be integrated with current large-scale assessment methodologies.…”
Section: Forward-looking Design For Using Context Information In Compmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Holman and Glas (2005) use reformulations of the models of O'Muircheartaigh and Moustaki (1999) to assess the extent to which the missing data are non-ignorable. Within the same framework, Moustaki and Knott (2000) present a latent variable model for binary and nominal observed items which includes covariate effects on attitudinal and response propensity items. In our study, we extend this approach to the longitudinal case with nonrandom dropout.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%