Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test01:09

Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test

The t-test is a statistical method used to compare the sample mean with a population mean or compare two means from two data sets. The test statistic is calculated from the standard deviation, mean, and number of measurements in the data set at a selected confidence interval and then compared to a table of critical values at this confidence level. If the test statistic is smaller than the critical value, the null hypothesis is accepted. In this case, we state that the difference between the...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...
Group Design02:01

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Observation and Manipulation of Optical Parametric Downconversion in the Langevin Regime.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Use of artificial intelligence to measure colorectal polyp size without a reference object.

Endoscopy international open·2025
Same author

Anxiety Sensitivity and Fast-Food Ordering Habits Among Black Adults.

Health behavior research·2021
Same author

Perspectives of Black/African American and Hispanic Parents and Children Living in Under-Resourced Communities Regarding Factors That Influence Food Choices and Decisions: A Qualitative Investigation.

Children (Basel, Switzerland)·2021
Same author

Examining moment to moment affective determinants of smoking rate following a quit attempt among homeless daily smokers.

Addictive behaviors·2020
Same author

How Minority Parents Could Help Children Develop Healthy Eating Behaviors: Parent and Child Perspectives.

Nutrients·2020

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 16, 2026

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Fixed or random testlet effects: a comparison of two multilevel testlet models.

Tzu-An Chen1

  • 1Universityh of Texas at Austin, USA. anntzuac@bcm.edu

Journal of Applied Measurement
|December 14, 2012
PubMed
Summary

The two-level multilevel measurement testlet (MMMT) model (MMMT-2r) demonstrated superior fixed and random effect parameter estimation, particularly with equal random testlet variances. However, performance declined with unequal variances and poor fit indices were observed.

More Related Videos

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
04:35

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach

Published on: July 3, 2020

Lexical Decision Task for Studying Written Word Recognition in Adults with and without Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment
06:48

Lexical Decision Task for Studying Written Word Recognition in Adults with and without Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: June 25, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 16, 2026

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
04:35

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach

Published on: July 3, 2020

Lexical Decision Task for Studying Written Word Recognition in Adults with and without Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment
06:48

Lexical Decision Task for Studying Written Word Recognition in Adults with and without Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: June 25, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Psychometrics
  • Educational Measurement
  • Statistical Modeling

Background:

  • Multilevel measurement testlet (MMMT) models are used in educational and psychological measurement.
  • Comparing different MMMT models is crucial for accurate parameter estimation.
  • Previous research has highlighted challenges in estimating parameters within MMMT frameworks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the performance of a two-level MMMT model (MMMT-2r) against a three-level MMMT model.
  • To investigate the impact of various conditions (testlet length, sample size, random effect patterns) on parameter estimation.
  • To evaluate the flexibility of MMMT-2r in modeling testlet effects.

Main Methods:

  • A simulation study was conducted to compare two MMMT models.
  • Key conditions manipulated included testlet length, sample size, and the pattern of testlet effects.
  • Estimation of fixed and random effect parameters was assessed.

Main Results:

  • MMMT-2r showed the best parameter bias for fixed item effects, fixed testlet effects, and random testlet effects under conditions with equal random testlet variances.
  • Performance of random effects estimation degraded with unequal random testlet variances.
  • Model fit indices performed poorly, consistent with prior research.

Conclusions:

  • MMMT-2r offers advantages in parameter estimation, especially when random testlet effects are equally distributed.
  • The model's flexibility in handling fixed, random, or both types of testlet effects is a significant benefit.
  • Further research is needed to address limitations in random effects estimation with unequal variances and improve fit index performance.