ArticlePloS one2026
A Monte Carlo simulation study of sample size requirements for the Graded Response Model.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe graded response model (GRM) is commonly used in psychometrics to analyze ordinal response data. Despite its growing application in scale development and validation, sample size recommendations-such as those provided by the COSMIN guidelines (e.g., n ≥ 1000)-are often based on expert consensus rather than empirical validation. Furthermore, the extent to which the number of items (J) and the number of response categories (K) contribute to parameter estimation accuracy remains insufficiently explored.
methodsWe conducted a Monte Carlo simulation to examine how three design conditions-sample size (n = 500-1500), number of items (J = 5-50), and a number of response categories (K = 4-7)-influence the estimation accuracy of the latent trait parameter ([Formula: see text]) and the item discrimination parameter (a) under the GRM. For each condition, we generated a large population dataset based on predefined distributions for [Formula: see text], a, and b, and then randomly drew samples (n) for estimation. The GRM was fitted using the EM algorithm. Estimation accuracy was evaluated using root mean squared error (RMSE), FPC-corrected RMSE, and Pearson's correlation coefficient between true and estimated [Formula: see text] values.
resultsThe RMSE of the discrimination parameter a decreased with increasing sample size (n) and number of items (J), while the effect of K was negligible. In contrast, the RMSE of [Formula: see text] was primarily influenced by J, with only minor effects from n and K. Notably, the Pearson correlation between true and estimated [Formula: see text] values consistently exceeded r = .98 across all conditions, suggesting high ordinal fidelity even with small samples. Increasing J beyond approximately 30 yielded diminishing returns in RMSE reduction.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that sample size recommendations for GRM should be flexibly tailored to the measurement goal. For accurate estimation of [Formula: see text], a sufficiently large number of items (e.g., J ≥ 30) can compensate for smaller sample sizes (n ≈ 500), whereas precise estimation of a requires larger samples (n ≥ 1000). The impact of increasing K was limited, indicating that additional response categories may not always enhance parameter recovery. These results provide empirically grounded guidance to support efficient and purpose-specific measurement designs in GRM applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.