# Estimating the Multidimensional Generalized Graded Unfolding Model with Covariates Using a Bayesian Approach

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

#### 1.1. The GGUM and Its Multidimensional Extension

_{j}is the latent trait level of person j, $\mathsf{\alpha}$

_{i}is the discrimination parameter of item i, $\mathsf{\delta}$

_{i}is the location parameter of item i, $\mathsf{\tau}$

_{ik}is the kth subjective response category threshold for item i, C is the number of response options minus 1, and M = 2C + 1.

_{jd}is the latent trait level of person j on the d

^{th}dimension, and

**θ**

_{j}= (θ

_{j1}, θ

_{j2}, …, θ

_{jD}) are assumed to follow a multivariate normal distribution. $\mathsf{\alpha}$

_{id}is the discrimination parameter of item i on the d

^{th}dimension, $\mathsf{\delta}$

_{id}is the location parameter of item i on the d

^{th}dimension, $\mathsf{\psi}$

_{ik}is the threshold parameter of the k

^{th}multidimensional subjective response category for item i, and $\mathsf{\tau}$

_{ik}is the k

^{th}subjective response category threshold for item i. D is the number of dimensions. C is the number of response options minus 1 and M = 2C + 1. The MGGUM estimated in the package bmggum only considers between-item multidimensionality (simple structure), which means that each item measures only a single trait, as shown in Figure 1. Therefore, $\mathsf{\alpha}$

_{id}, $\mathsf{\delta}$

_{id}, and $\mathsf{\tau}$

_{ik}= 0 for all d except one. Within each dimension, the unidimensional GGUM still applies. Users will need to rely on theories to decide which item loads on which factor, just like in confirmatory factor analysis. Note that the MGGUM defined in Equation (2) resembles the confirmatory multidimensional generalized graded unfolding model (CMGGUM) proposed in Wang and Wu (2016). The CMGGUM was proposed to handle both between and within-item multidimensionality, which means that it allows cross-loadings. In the case of between-item dimensionality, MGGUM is equivalent to CMGGUM.

#### 1.2. Estimating the MGGUM

#### 1.3. Incorporation of Covariates

_{jd}is the latent trait level of person j on the d

^{th}dimension, ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{p}}$ is the p

^{th}covariate of person j, ${\mathsf{\beta}}_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{d}}$ is the regression coefficient of the relationship between the d

^{th}dimension and the p

^{th}covariates, p is the number of covariates, ${\mathrm{\u2107}}_{\mathrm{j}\mathrm{d}}$ is the residual and is assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and variance of ${\mathsf{\sigma}}^{2}$.

#### 1.4. Bayesian Model Fit Diagnostics

## 2. Study 1. Model Estimation Accuracy

#### 2.1. Method

**θ**~ MVN($\mathsf{\beta}$

**X**, $\omega $), $\mathsf{\beta}$ ~ MVN(0, 1), $\omega $ ~ lkj_corr_cholesky(1). Random initial values generated by bmggum were used. Based on the preliminary trials, 2000 iterations with 2 chains were sufficient to achieve convergence. Therefore, in this study, 2000 iterations with 2 chains were performed and the first 1000 iterations were discarded as burn-in. Model convergence was assessed using the Gelman–Rubin diagnostic index (Gelman and Rubin 1992), which compares the variability of samples after burn-in within parallel chains with the variability between parallel chains. If the ratio of variability between parallel chains to variability within parallel chains is less than 1.05, we considered it as evidence for model convergence. If a certain replication failed to converge, it was discarded, and an additional replication was conducted until 100 valid replications were obtained per condition. Overall, model nonconvergence was rare, specifically less than 4%, in this study.

^{th}item, $\widehat{\mathsf{\alpha}}$ is the parameter estimate, and $\mathsf{\alpha}$ is the true parameter. To have a single value of each estimation accuracy index for each condition, the obtained Cor, bias, and Ae values for item and person parameter estimates were averaged across replications and dimensions. Larger Cor and smaller bias and Ae indicate more accurate parameter estimation. The power/Type I error rates for detecting the correlations between traits and covariates were also computed by examining whether the 95% confidence interval of the posterior distribution of the regression coefficients included zero. If zero was included in the 95% confidence interval, it was considered statistically non-significant; if zero was not included in the 95% confidence interval, it was considered statistically significant.

#### 2.2. Results

## 3. Study 2. Model Selection Accuracy

#### 3.1. Method

#### 3.2. Results

## 4. Study 3. Empirical Illustration

#### 4.1. Method

#### 4.2. Results

_{GGUM2004}= 0.34, SE

_{GGUM2004}= 0.10; r

_{GGUM}= 0.34, SE

_{GGUM}= 0.10; r

_{mirt}= 0.32, SE

_{mirt}= 0.10), and no significant gender difference was found for assertiveness (r

_{GGUM2004}= −0.18, SE

_{GGUM2004}= 0.10; r

_{GGUM}= −0.18, SE

_{GGUM}= 0.10; r

_{mirt}= −0.14, SE

_{mirt}= 0.11). Age differences in orderliness (r

_{GGUM2004}= 0.01, SE

_{GGUM2004}= 0.04; r

_{GGUM}= 0.01, SE

_{GGUM}= 0.04; r

_{mirt}= 0.01, SE

_{mirt}= 0.04) and assertiveness (r

_{GGUM2004}= 0.03, SE

_{GGUM2004}= 0.04; r

_{GGUM}= 0.03, SE

_{GGUM}= 0.04; r

_{mirt}= 0.04, SE

_{mirt}= 0.04) were not significant.

## 5. Discussion

#### 5.1. The Benefit of Multidimensional Estimation and the Incorporation of Covariates

#### 5.2. Model Selection

#### 5.3. Implications

#### 5.4. Limitations and Future Directions

#### 5.5. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Akaike, Hirotogu. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Edited by Boris Nikolaevich Petrov and Frigyes Csaki. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, pp. 267–81. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Li, Kilchan Choi, Mark Hansen, and Lauren Harrell. 2016. Item response theory. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 3: 297–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Mengyang, Fritz Drasgow, and Seonghee Cho. 2015. Developing ideal intermediate personality items for the ideal point model. Organizational Research Methods 18: 252–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Mengyang, Q. Chelsea Song, and Louis Tay. 2018. Detecting curvilinear relationships: A comparison of scoring approaches based on different item response models. International Journal of Testing 18: 178–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, Nathan T., and Dev K. Dalal. 2010. An ideal point account of the JDI Work satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences 49: 743–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, Nathan T., and Michael J. Zickar. 2011. The influence of dimensionality on parameter estimation accuracy in the generalized graded unfolding model. Educational and Psychological Measurement 71: 765–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, Nathan T., Dev K. Dalal, Anthony S. Boyce, Matthew S. O’Connell, Mei-Chuan Kung, and Kristin M. Delgado. 2014. Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 564–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Carter, Nathan T., Dev K. Dalal, Li Guan, Alexander C. LoPilato, and Scott A. Withrow. 2017. Item response theory scoring and the detection of curvilinear relationships. Psychological Methods 22: 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, Seonghee, Fritz Drasgow, and Mengyang Cao. 2015. An investigation of emotional intelligence measures using item response theory. Psychological Assessment 27: 1241–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curran, Patrick J., Veronica Cole, Daniel J. Bauer, Andrea M. Hussong, and Nisha Gottfredson. 2016. Improving factor score estimation through the use of observed background characteristics. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 23: 827–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- de la Torre, Jimmy, Stephan Stark, and Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko. 2006. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of item parameters for the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement 30: 216–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drasgow, Fritz, Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko, and Stephen Stark. 2010. 75 years after Likert: Thurstone was right! Industrial and Organizational Psychology 3: 465–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrhart, Karen Holcombe, Scott C. Roesch, Mark G. Ehrhart, and Britta Kilian. 2008. A test of the factor structure equivalence of the 50-item IPIP Five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of Personality Assessment 90: 507–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Geisser, Seymour, and William F. Eddy. 1979. A predictive approach to model selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74: 153–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelman, Andrew, and Donald B. Rubin. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7: 457–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinkin, Timothy R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management 21: 967–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, Seang-Hwane, Philseok Lee, and Stephen Stark. 2017. Evaluating anchor-item designs for concurrent calibration with the GGUM. Applied Psychological Measurement 41: 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joo, Seang-Hwane, Philseok Lee, and Stephen Stark. 2022. The Explanatory Generalized Graded Unfolding Model: Incorporating Collateral Information to Improve the Latent Trait Estimation Accuracy. Applied Psychological Measurement 46: 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lang, Jonas W. B., and Louis Tay. 2021. The science and practice of Item Response Theory in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 8: 311–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Philseok, Seang-Hwane Joo, Stephen Stark, and Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko. 2019. GGUM-RANK statement and person parameter estimation with multidimensional forced choice triplets. Applied Psychological Measurement 43: 226–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Yong, and Hong Jiao. 2018. Using the Stan program for Bayesian item response theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 78: 384–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Yong, and Khaleel Al-Harbi. 2017. Performances of LOO and WAIC as IRT model selection methods. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling 59: 183. [Google Scholar]
- Nye, Christopher D., Seang-Hwane Joo, Bo Zhang, and Stephen Stark. 2020. Advancing and evaluating IRT model data fit Indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 23: 457–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reise, Steven P., and Niels G. Waller. 2009. Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5: 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Roberts, James S., and Vanessa M. Thompson. 2011. Marginal maximum a posteriori item parameter estimation for the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement 35: 259–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, James S., Haw-ren Fang, Weiwei Cui, and Yingji Wang. 2006. GGUM2004: A Windows-Based Program to Estimate Parameters in the Generalized Graded Unfolding Model. Applied Psychological Measurement 30: 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, James S., John R. Donoghue, and James E. Laughlin. 2000. A general item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement 24: 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, James S., John R. Donoghue, and James E. Laughlin. 2002. Characteristics of MML/EAP parameter estimates in the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement 26: 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, Gideon. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6: 461–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spector, Paul E., Jeremy A. Bauer, and Suzy Fox. 2010. Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiegelhalter, David J., Nicola G. Best, Bradley P. Carlin, and Angelika Van Der Linde. 2003. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Quality Control and Applied Statistics 48: 431–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Stan Development Team. 2020. RStan: The R Interface to Stan. R Package Version 2.21.2. Available online: https://mc-stan.org (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Stark, Stephen, Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko, and Fritz Drasgow. 2005. An IRT approach to constructing and scoring pairwise preference items involving stimuli on different dimensions: The multi-unidimensional pairwise-preference model. Applied Psychological Measurement 29: 184–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stark, Stephen, Oleksandr S. Chernyshenko, Fritz Drasgow, and Bruce A. Williams. 2006. Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: Should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring? Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Tianjun, R. Chris Fraley, and Fritz Drasgow. 2021. Matches made with information: Fitting measurement models to adult attachment data. Assessment 28: 1828–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tay, Louis, Fritz Drasgow, James Rounds, and Bruce A. Williams. 2009. Fitting measurement models to vocational interest data: Are dominance models ideal? Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 1287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tay, Louis, Usama S. Ali, Fritz Drasgow, and Bruce Williams. 2011. Fitting IRT models to dichotomous and polytomous data: Assessing the relative model–data fit of ideal point and dominance models. Applied Psychological Measurement 35: 280–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tendeiro, Jorge N., and Sebastian Castro-Alvarez. 2019. GGUM: An R package for fitting the generalized graded unfolding model. Applied Psychological Measurement 43: 172–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thomas, Neal. 2002. The role of secondary covariates when estimating latent trait population distributions. Psychometrika 67: 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, Naidan, Bo Zhang, Lawrence Angrave, and Tianjun Sun. 2021. bmggum: An R package for Bayesian estimation of the multidimensional generalized graded unfolding model with covariates. Applied Psychological Measurement 45: 553–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usami, Satoshi. 2011. Generalized graded unfolding model with structural equation for subject parameters. Japanese Psychological Research 53: 221–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman, and Jonah Gabry. 2017. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing 27: 1413–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Wang, Wen-Chung, and Shiu-Lien Wu. 2016. Confirmatory multidimensional IRT unfolding models for graded-response items. Applied Psychological Measurement 40: 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Wen-Chung, Po-Hsi Chen, and Ying-Yao Cheng. 2004. Improving measurement precision of test batteries using multidimensional item response models. Psychological Methods 9: 116–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Watanabe, Sumio, and Manfred Opper. 2010. Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11: 3571–94. [Google Scholar]
- Yong, Luo. 2018. LOO and WAIC as model selection methods for polytomous items. arXiv arXiv:1806.09996. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Bo, Jing Luo, Tianjun Sun, Mengyang Cao, and Fritz Drasgow. 2023. Small but nontrivial: A comparison of six strategies to handle cross-loadings in bifactor. Multivariate Behavioral Research 58: 115–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Bo, Mengyang Cao, Louis Tay, Jing Luo, and Fritz Drasgow. 2020. Examining the item response process to personality measures in high-stakes situations: Issues of measurement validity and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology 73: 305–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Missing | r | Traits | Beta | Cor | Bias | Ae | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Items = 5 | Items = 10 | Items = 5 | Items = 10 | Items = 5 | Items = 10 | ||||||||||

RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | ||||

0 | 0 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.29 |

0.25 | 0.65 | 0.85 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.30 | |||

5 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.75 | 0.92 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.29 | ||

0.25 | 0.65 | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.29 | |||

0.5 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.64 | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.29 | |

0.25 | 0.67 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 0.29 | |||

5 | 0.00 | 0.69 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.28 | ||

0.25 | 0.70 | 0.87 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.29 | |||

0.2 | 0 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.79 | 0.69 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.33 |

0.25 | 0.61 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.33 | |||

5 | 0.00 | 0.52 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.89 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.33 | ||

0.25 | 0.60 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.33 | |||

0.5 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.58 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.32 | |

0.25 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.51 | 0.33 | |||

5 | 0.00 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.32 | ||

0.25 | 0.66 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.32 |

Sample Size | Missing | r | WAIC | LOO | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Items = 5 | Items = 10 | Items = 5 | Items = 10 | |||||||

RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | RO = 2 | RO = 4 | |||

200 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |

0.60 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||

0.90 | 0.62 | 0.96 | 0.77 | 1.00 | 0.39 | 0.92 | 0.64 | 1.00 | ||

1.00 | 0.54 | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.68 | ||

0.20 | 0.30 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |

0.60 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.76 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.99 | ||

0.90 | 0.71 | 0.95 | 0.71 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.83 | 0.63 | 0.98 | ||

1.00 | 0.55 | 0.36 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.75 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 0.73 | ||

500 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |

0.60 | 0.94 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.00 | ||

0.90 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 0.97 | 0.76 | 1.00 | ||

1.00 | 0.56 | 0.33 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.77 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.72 | ||

0.20 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |

0.60 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | ||

0.90 | 0.82 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 1.00 | ||

1.00 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.57 | ||

1000 | 0.00 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |

0.60 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||

0.90 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 1.00 | ||

1.00 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.55 | 0.51 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.64 | ||

0.20 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |

0.60 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||

0.90 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 1.00 | ||

1.00 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.70 | 0.45 |

Items | Alpha | Delta | Tau | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

bmggum | ggum 2004 | ggum | mirt | bmggum | ggum 2004 | ggum | mirt | bmggum | ggum 2004 | ggum | mirt | |

Order1 | 1.57 (0.25) | 1.95 (0.37) | 1.96 (0.37) | 1.79 (0.30) | 1.96 (0.48) | 1.53 (0.30) | 1.52 (0.29) | 1.45 (0.25) | −1.98 (0.49) | −1.57 (0.29) | −1.56 (0.29) | 1.47 (0.24) |

Order2 | 1.10 (0.17) | 1.23 (0.67) | 1.23 (0.67) | 1.15 (0.19) | 2.15 (0.49) | 2.69 (17.50) | 2.59 (15.90) | 1.71 (0.35) | −3.18 (0.53) | −3.67 (17.77) | −3.57 (16.18) | 2.67 (0.40) |

Order3 | 1.49 (0.23) | 1.56 (0.37) | 1.57 (0.50) | 1.55 (0.26) | 2.11 (0.50) | 2.37 (6.27) | 2.58 (10.65) | 1.53 (0.35) | −2.29 (0.51) | −2.57 (6.44) | −2.78 (10.89) | 1.69 (0.35) |

Order4 | 1.10 (0.20) | 1.23 (0.23) | 1.22 (0.23) | 1.24 (0.24) | 1.58 (0.45) | 1.24 (0.25) | 1.24 (0.25) | 1.16 (0.23) | −1.21 (0.42) | −0.94 (0.20) | −0.94 (0.20) | 0.86 (0.18) |

Order5 | 1.26 (0.22) | 1.24 (0.54) | 1.24 (0.56) | 1.41 (0.40) | −3.21 (0.49) | −4.53 (22.29) | −4.42 (20.45) | −1.60 (0.34) | −0.46 (0.41) | −1.84 (23.33) | −1.72 (21.55) | −0.84 (0.44) |

Order6 | 1.11 (0.18) | 1.25 (0.66) | 1.26 (0.63) | 1.15 (0.21) | −2.48 (0.54) | −3.53 (14.42) | −3.72 (16.77) | −1.91 (0.41) | −1.18 (0.58) | −2.41 (15.22) | −2.62 (17.49) | 0.65 (0.39) |

Order7 | 1.94 (0.32) | 2.61 (0.60) | 2.61 (0.57) | 2.25 (0.39) | −2.54 (0.44) | −2.74 (9.90) | −2.68 (7.82) | −2.06 (0.28) | −1.43 (0.46) | −1.79 (10.03) | −1.74 (7.95) | 1.05 (0.28) |

Order8 | 1.96 (0.33) | 2.71 (0.55) | 2.71 (0.55) | 2.34 (0.44) | −2.29 (0.45) | −1.82 (0.27) | −1.82 (0.27) | −1.79 (0.25) | −1.19 (0.45) | −0.90 (0.24) | −0.89 (0.24) | 0.80 (0.21) |

Order9 | 0.68 (0.14) | 0.55 (0.19) | 0.55 (0.19) | 0.63 (0.16) | −0.74 (0.33) | −0.82 (0.46) | −0.82 (0.45) | −0.68 (0.30) | −0.81 (0.25) | −0.73 (0.28) | −0.73 (0.28) | 0.70 (0.22) |

Order10 | 1.69 (0.33) | 2.45 (0.47) | 2.45 (0.48) | 2.21 (0.45) | −0.01 (0.10) | −0.03 (0.07) | −0.03 (0.07) | −0.03 (0.09) | −1.29 (0.10) | −1.15 (0.07) | −1.15 (0.07) | 1.18 (0.08) |

Order11 | 1.57 (0.29) | 2.20 (0.43) | 2.20 (0.43) | 1.91 (0.37) | 0.26 (0.12) | 0.22 (0.08) | 0.22 (0.08) | 0.21 (0.10) | −1.23 (0.11) | −1.11 (0.08) | −1.10 (0.08) | 1.13 (0.09) |

Assertiveness1 | 2.04 (0.29) | 2.81 (0.44) | 2.82 (0.45) | 2.46 (0.37) | 1.70 (0.48) | 1.29 (0.26) | 1.28 (0.26) | 1.20 (0.22) | −2.51 (0.49) | −2.01 (0.27) | −2.00 (0.27) | 1.93 (0.23) |

Assertiveness2 | 1.21 (0.22) | 1.56 (0.35) | 1.31 (0.40) | 1.46 (0.31) | 1.06 (0.44) | 0.84 (0.34) | 3.58 (26.53) | .63 (0.27) | −3.67 (0.54) | −2.97 (0.47) | −5.94 (26.36) | 2.89 (0.40) |

Assertiveness3 | 2.65 (0.39) | 4.13 (0.77) | 4.10 (0.80) | 3.36 (0.54) | 1.81 (0.53) | 2.09 (314.35) | 2.25 (686.92) | 1.21 (0.31) | −2.85 (0.54) | −2.98 (314.36) | −3.13 (686.93) | 2.14 (0.31) |

Assertiveness4 | 0.74 (0.12) | 0.71 (0.64) | 0.74 (0.43) | 0.77 (0.15) | 2.09 (0.61) | 4.07 (25.83) | 5.49 (39.59) | 1.44 (0.42) | −1.60 (0.62) | −3.74 (27.82) | −5.23 (40.62) | 0.98 (0.37) |

Assertiveness5 | 2.47 (0.38) | 4.17 (0.86) | 4.19 (1.01) | 3.20 (0.57) | −2.73 (0.41) | −2.92 (28.05) | −2.95 (54.15) | −2.11 (0.24) | −1.23 (0.42) | −1.72 (28.09) | −1.75 (54.24) | 0.80 (0.22) |

Assertiveness6 | 2.32 (0.35) | 3.74 (0.56) | 4.20 (0.74) | 3.23 (0.65) | −2.37 (0.44) | −2.59 (3.22) | −1.81 (0.17) | −1.73 (0.18) | −1.39 (0.44) | −1.77 (3.22) | −1.02 (0.16) | 0.91 (0.15) |

Assertiveness7 | 3.23 (0.41) | 7.42 (2.23) | 7.68 (2.34) | 4.80 (0.96) | −2.61 (0.43) | −2.65 (82.96) | −2.64 (201.70) | −1.97 (0.23) | −1.65 (0.44) | −1.84 (82.96) | −1.85 (201.70) | 1.14 (0.21) |

Assertiveness8 | 2.55 (0.40) | 4.28 (0.88) | 4.44 (0.95) | 3.39 (0.60) | −2.38 (0.40) | −2.00 (0.24) | −1.86 (0.16) | −1.85 (0.17) | −1.29 (0.40) | −1.10 (0.23) | −0.97 (0.16) | 0.90 (0.15) |

Assertiveness9 | 1.13 (0.22) | 1.32 (0.28) | 1.34 (0.28) | 1.34 (0.28) | −0.06 (0.14) | −0.02 (0.11) | −0.02 (0.11) | −0.06 (0.12) | −1.37 (0.14) | −1.20 (0.11) | −1.20 (0.11) | 1.23 (0.11) |

Assertiveness10 | 1.09 (0.20) | 1.30 (0.28) | 1.30 (0.28) | 1.25 (0.26) | −0.05 (0.15) | −0.01 (0.11) | −0.01 (0.11) | −0.05 (0.13) | −1.23 (0.13) | −1.08 (0.11) | −1.08 (0.11) | 1.11 (0.11) |

Assertiveness11 | 1.44 (0.29) | 1.88 (0.40) | 1.88 (0.39) | 1.54 (0.35) | −0.41 (0.12) | −0.34 (0.08) | −0.34 (0.08) | −0.37 (0.11) | −1.36 (0.12) | −1.15 (0.09) | −1.15 (0.09) | 1.24 (0.11) |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Tu, N.; Zhang, B.; Angrave, L.; Sun, T.; Neuman, M.
Estimating the Multidimensional Generalized Graded Unfolding Model with Covariates Using a Bayesian Approach. *J. Intell.* **2023**, *11*, 163.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080163

**AMA Style**

Tu N, Zhang B, Angrave L, Sun T, Neuman M.
Estimating the Multidimensional Generalized Graded Unfolding Model with Covariates Using a Bayesian Approach. *Journal of Intelligence*. 2023; 11(8):163.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080163

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Tu, Naidan, Bo Zhang, Lawrence Angrave, Tianjun Sun, and Mathew Neuman.
2023. "Estimating the Multidimensional Generalized Graded Unfolding Model with Covariates Using a Bayesian Approach" *Journal of Intelligence* 11, no. 8: 163.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11080163