IRT wikibook

ITEM RESPONSE THEORYAN UNDERSTANDING PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:06:17 UTC Contents Articles Item response theory Classical test theory Concept inventory Differential item functioning Person-fit analysis Psychometrics Rasch model Scale (social sciences) Standardized test Generalizability theory 1 10 13 16 17 18 23 31 35 41 References Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 43 44 Article Licenses License 45 Item response theory 1 Item response theory In psychometrics, item response theory (IRT) also known as latent trait theory, strong true score theory, or modern mental test theory, is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and scoring of tests, questionnaires, and similar instruments measuring abilities, attitudes, or other variables. It is based on the application of related mathematical models to testing data. Because it is generally regarded as superior to classical test theory, it is the preferred method for the development of high-stakes tests such as the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT). The name item response theory is due to the focus of the theory on the item, as opposed to the test-level focus of classical test theory, by modeling the response of an examinee of given ability to each item in the test. The term item is used because many test questions are not actually questions; they might be multiple choice questions that have incorrect and correct responses, but are also commonly statements on questionnaires that allow respondents to indicate level of agreement (a rating or Likert scale), or patient symptoms scored as present/absent. IRT is based on the idea that the probability of a correct/keyed response to an item is a mathematical function of person and item parameters. The person parameter is called latent trait or ability; it may, for example, represent a person's intelligence or the strength of an attitude. Item parameters include difficulty (location), discrimination (slope or correlation), and pseudoguessing (lower asymptote). Overview The concept of the item response function was around before 1950. The pioneering work of IRT as a theory occurred during the 1950s and 1960s. Three of the pioneers were the Educational Testing Service psychometrician Frederic M. Lord,[1] the Danish mathematician Georg Rasch, and Austrian sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld, who pursued parallel research independently. Key figures who furthered the progress of IRT include Benjamin Wright and David Andrich. IRT did not become widely used until the late 1970s and 1980s, when personal computers gave many researchers access to the computing power necessary for IRT. Among other things, the purpose of IRT is to provide a framework for evaluating how well assessments work, and how well individual items on assessments work. The most common application of IRT is in education, where psychometricians use it for developing and refining exams, maintaining banks of items for exams, and equating for the difficulties of successive versions of exams (for example, to allow comparisons between results over time).[2] IRT models are often referred to as latent trait models. The term latent is used to emphasize that discrete item responses are taken to be observable manifestations of hypothesized traits, constructs, or attributes, not directly observed, but which must be inferred from the manifest responses. Latent trait models were developed in the field of sociology, but are virtually identical to IRT models. IRT is generally regarded as an improvement over classical test theory (CTT). For tasks that can be accomplished using CTT, IRT generally brings greater flexibility and provides more sophisticated information. Some applications, such as computerized adaptive testing, are enabled by IRT and cannot reasonably be performed using only classical test theory. Another advantage of IRT over CTT is that the more sophisticated information IRT provides allows a researcher to improve the reliability of an assessment. IRT entails three assumptions: 1. A unidimensional trait denoted by ; 2. Local independence of items; 3. The response of a person to an item can be modeled by a mathematical item response function (IRF). The trait is further assumed to be measurable on a scale (the mere existence of a test assumes this), typically set to a standard scale with a mean of 0.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0. 'Local independence' means that items are not related except for the fact that they measure the same trait, which is equivalent to the assumption of Item response theory unidimensionality, but presented separately because multidimensionality can be caused by other issues. The topic of dimensionality is often investigated with factor analysis, while the IRF is the basic building block of IRT and is the center of much of the research and literature. 2 The item response function The IRF gives the probability that a person with a given ability level will answer correctly. Persons with lower ability have less of a chance, while persons with high ability are very likely to answer correctly; for example, students with higher math ability are more likely to get a math item correct. The exact value of the probability depends, in addition to ability, on a set of item parameters for the IRF. For example, in the three parameter logistic (3PL) model, the probability of a correct response to an item i is: where is the person (ability) parameter and , , and are the item parameters. The item parameters simply determine the shape of the IRF and in some cases have a direct interpretation. The figure to the right depicts an example of the 3PL model of the ICC with an overlaid conceptual explanation of the parameters. The parameter represents the item location which, in the case of attainment testing, is referred to as the item difficulty. It is the point on difficulty since where the IRF has its maximum slope. The example item is of medium =0.0, which is near the center of the distribution. Note that this model scales the item's difficulty and the person's trait onto the same continuum. Thus, it is valid to talk about an item being about as hard as Person A's trait level or of a person's trait level being about the same as Item Y's difficulty, in the sense that successful performance of the task involved with an item reflects a specific level of ability. The item parameter represents the discrimination of the item: that is, the degree to which the item discriminates between persons in different regions on the latent continuum. This parameter characterizes the slope of the IRF where the slope is at its maximum. The example item has =1.0, which discriminates fairly well; persons with low ability do indeed have a much smaller chance of correctly responding than persons of higher ability. For items such as multiple choice items, the parameter is used in attempt to account for the effects of guessing on the probability of a correct response. It indicates the probability that very low ability individuals will get this item correct by chance, mathematically represented as a lower asymptote. A four-option multiple choice item might have an IRF like the example item; there is a 1/4 chance of an extremely low ability candidate guessing the correct answer, so the would be approximately 0.25. This approach assumes that all options are equally plausible, because if one option made no sense, even the lowest ability person would be able to discard it, so IRT parameter estimation methods take this into account and estimate a based on the observed data.[3] IRT models can also be categorized based on the number of scored responses. the 2PL logistic and normal-ogive IRFs differ in probability by no more than 0.. The typical multiple choice item is dichotomous. With rescaling of the ability parameter. where each response has a different score value. but that items can vary in terms of location ( ) and discrimination ( ). The 1PL uses only . Individual items or individuals might have secondary factors but these are assumed to be mutually independent and collectively orthogonal.[7] This means it is technically possible to estimate a simple IRT model using general-purpose statistical software.[9] ." Number of IRT parameters Dichotomous IRT models are described by the number of parameters they make use of. it is still scored only as correct/incorrect (right/wrong). one can estimate a normal-ogive latent trait model by factor-analyzing a matrix of tetrachoric correlations between items. The two-parameter model (2PL) assumes that the data have minimal guessing." with responses of agree/disagree. For example. with an upper asymptote. In fact. guessing is not relevant for the item "I like Broadway musicals. Typically. "Rate on a scale of 1 to 5. even though there may be four or five options. However. The difference is greatest in the distribution tails. The normal-ogive model derives from the assumption of normally distributed measurement error and is theoretically appealing on that basis.[8] the normal-ogive model is no more computationally demanding than logistic models. such as attitude items. the standard deviation of the measurement error for item i. because of the greatly increased complexity. However. Another class of models apply to polytomous outcomes. The one-parameter model (1PL) assumes that there is minimal guessing and that items have equivalent discriminations. the formula for a two-parameter normal-ogive IRF is: where Φ is the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the standard normal distribution.g. but that all items are equivalent in terms of discrimination. so that items are only described by a single parameter ( ). and has enjoyed wide use since. and the 3PL adds . More recently. Unidimensional models require a single trait (ability) dimension . but this was considered too computationally demanding for the computers at the time (1960s). Multidimensional IRT models model response data hypothesized to arise from multiple traits. The 1PL assumes not only that guessing is irrelevant.[6] The 3PL is named so because it employs three item parameters. again. Here. however. which tend to have more influence on results. there is theoretically a four-parameter model.01 across the range of the function. Here is. this is rarely used. The discrimination parameter is . the majority of IRT research and applications utilize a unidimensional model.Item response theory 3 IRT models Broadly speaking. Logistic and normal IRT models An alternative formulation constructs IRFs based on the normal probability distribution. and is appropriate for testing items where guessing the correct answer is highly unlikely. e. it was demonstrated that. and comparable to 1/ . using standard polynomial approximations to the normal cdf. IRT models can be divided into two families: unidimensional and multidimensional. the difficulty parameter. For example. This naming is somewhat confusing. Additionally. note that it does not follow alphabetical order. The 2PL is equivalent to the 3PL model with . these are sometimes called normal ogive models. The logistic model was proposed as a simpler alternative. the 2PL uses and . however. it is possible to make the 2PL logistic model closely approximate the cumulative normal ogive.[4] [5] A common example of this Likert-type items. The latent trait/IRT model was originally developed using normal ogives. the trait is analogous to a single factor in factor analysis. parameter. where legal concerns typically dictate the use of rescaled raw scores without correction for guessing or misfit. where exclusion of outlying persons is normal practice. by contrast. but will simply undergo a linear rescaling. misfitting responses require diagnosis of the reason for the misfit. where persons and items can be mapped onto the same invariant scale. while the Rasch model specifies requirements for fundamental measurement. or pseudo-chance. care must be taken to avoid confirmation bias. for example. such an exploratory approach sacrifices the use of fit statistics as a diagnostic tool to confirm whether the theorized model is an acceptable description of the latent trait. which provides fundamental person-free measurement if applied to the social sciences. where a theory or model is hypothesized prior to data collection and data-model fit is used to confirm the research hypotheses. rather than operational testing. achieves data-model fit by selecting a model that fits the data.Item response theory 4 The Rasch model The Rasch model is often considered to be an IRT model. which has been a major criticism of the approach for decades. as a model is not specified in advance for confirmation. The implication of this is that sample independent measurement is only possible in one-parameter models.[12] Operationally. but follows a confirmatory approach. such methods result in better data-model fit. proponents of Rasch measurement models assert that only data which adequately fit the Rasch model satisfy the requirements of fundamental measurement. and will therefore typically employ a guessing parameter to account for this. Two and three-parameter models will still report fit statistics.[10] IRT attempts to fit a model to observed data [11] . Therefore. and may be excluded from the data set if substantive explanations can be made that they do not address the latent trait. However. but. and. where the probability of a correct response is a function only of the difference between person ability and item difficulty. provided sufficient items are tested. In contrast.[15] Three-parameter IRT. As the noise is randomly distributed. As in any confirmatory analysis. then more sophisticated identification of pseudo-chance responses is needed to correct for guessing. if the number of misfitting items is excessive.[17] In other words. in violation of the assumptions of invariant measurement. Unsurprisingly. the Rasch approach assumes guessing adds random noise to the data. Of course. The IRT approach recognizes that guessing is present in multiple choice examinations. Accordingly. But of course the data in the social sciences has considerable noise and error.[14] This obviously assumes that the researcher is able to identify whether a student guessed or not by simply examining the patterns of responses in the data. so persons are not tested on items where guessing or unlucky mistakes are likely to affect results. but is in fact a completely different approach to conceptualizing the relationship between data and the theory. if guessing is not random. although a larger number of items may be needed to achieve the desired level of reliability and separation. the Rasch model typically results in some items misfitting the model. Rasch[16] showed that parameters are separable with measurement in the physical sciences. then the obvious question is why use the Rasch approach as opposed to IRT models. This means that the relative difficulties of items are not invariant across the sample of persons. but the exploratory nature of the analysis means that they are irrelevant as a tool for confirmatory analysis and lack the diagnostic value of Rasch fit statistics. namely the one-parameter model. If misfitting responses are retained.[13] It is important to note that this Rasch perspective is in contrast to exploratory approaches. A major point of contention is the use of the guessing. under Rasch models. By introducing further parameters and . and thus requires adequate data-model fit before a test or research instrument can be claimed to measure a trait. The presence of random guessing will not therefore affect the relationships between Rasch person measures. Rasch fit statistics allow identification of unlikely responses which may be excluded from the analysis if they are attributed to guessing. the rank-ordering of persons along the latent trait by raw score will not change. arising through poorly written distractors that address an irrelevant trait. in IRT models where the discrimination parameter is controlled. so is typically used in analysis of distractor effectiveness in pilot administrations of operational tests or validation of research instruments. A form of guessing correction is available within Rasch measurement by excluding all responses where person ability and item difficulty differ by preset amounts. there is a data-model mismatch. the item response curves of different items can cross. this means that the IRT approaches adjust model parameters to reflect the patterns observed in the data. while the Rasch approach requires that the data fits the Rasch model before claims regarding the presence of a latent trait can be considered valid. which attempt to develop a theory or model to account for observed data. finely calibrated differentiation of ability may not be the primary objective. so misfit such as this is construct relevant and does not invalidate the test or the model. However. but rather because a construct relevant reason for the misfit has been diagnosed. which in this application means a one-to-one mapping of raw number-correct scores to Rasch estimates. and. so persons will not be substantively affected unless they display extremely misfitting response strings. and this can then be used for operational scoring of the same test form without requiring the item responses of the new administrations to be collected and analyzed. such as a chi-square statistic. then the items may be removed from that test form and rewritten or replaced in future test forms. Also. Thus two or three-parameter models are only appropriate for uses where persons and items are not required to be mapped onto a single scale of measurement because the relative difficulty of items is not stable for different persons.[18] A practical benefit of this is that the validation analysis of a test can be used to produce a "score table" listing Rasch measures (scores) corresponding to raw scores. for example confusing distractors in a multiple-choice test. the measurement error for individual persons will generally exceed the size of differences between Rasch and IRT person measures. while two and three-parameter models have value for standardized testing where extensive piloting is impractical and correction for badly performing distractors is required. such as a non-native speaker of English taking a science test written in English. If item misfit with any model is diagnosed as due to poor item quality. allowing the hypotheses upon which test specifications are based to be empirically tested against data. whereas 2. hence different models are appropriate for different purposes. which is typically the goal of proficiency tests. so fit statistics lack the confirmatory diagnostic value found in one-parameter models. where the idealized model is specified in advance. a large number of misfitting items occur with no apparent reason for the misfit. where extensive piloting is conducted to diagnose poorly performing items. Data should not be removed on the basis of misfitting the model. Two or three parameter models are useful for analyzing large dichotomous datasets where guessing may be significant. although one parameter IRT measures are argued to be sample-independent. but mapping persons and items onto an invariant scale is of central interest. Such a candidate can be argued to not belong to the same population of persons depending on the dimensionality of the test. they are not population independent. For classroom testing purposes. Thus. however. where the psychometric model is adjusted to fit the data. 5 Analysis of model fit As with any use of mathematical models. However. extensive pilot-testing to identify poorly discriminating items is not possible.Item response theory allowing item response curves to cross. and estimation of person ability is the only requirement. for other instruments such as diagnostic tests or research instruments. unless the test is extremely long. which would require investigation to determine whether the person was following the same latent trait as other examinees. for some purposes. but outside of large-scale standardized testing. The Rasch model thus has major benefits as a tool for validation of research instruments. it is important to assess the fit of the data to the model. Two and three-parameter IRT models adjust item discrimination. or a standardized version of it. this existence of sufficient statistics is also a disadvantage because it means that there are only as many Rasch measures on the standard scale as there are raw scores. If. producing finer differentiation among examinees. the construct validity of the test will need to be reconsidered and the test specifications may need to be rewritten. the measurement scale becomes sample dependent and relative item difficulties vary for different persons. the Rasch model's ability to analyze smaller data sets than more complex IRT models and provision of invariant sample-independent measurement has major practical and theoretical benefits. ensuring improved data-model fit.or 3-parameter models report a person measure for each possible response string. In two and three-parameter models. Such an approach is an essential tool in instrument validation. future administrations of the test must be checked for fit to the same model used in . such procedures greatly improve the practicality of immediate IRT-type scoring with paper-and-pencil administration. Another characteristic of the Rasch approach is that estimation of parameters is more straightforward in Rasch models due to the presence of sufficient statistics. misfit provides invaluable diagnostic tools for test developers. There are several methods for assessing fit. Less discriminating items provide less information but over a wider range. then a different latent trait is being measured and test scores cannot be argued to be comparable between administrations. the item information supplied in the case of the 1PL for dichotomous response data is simply the probability of a correct response multiplied by the probability of an incorrect response. for example. The standard error of estimation (SE) is the reciprocal of the test information of at a given trait level. item information functions tend to look bell-shaped. Thus. Using this property with a large item bank. Item response theory advances the concept of item and test information to replace reliability. 6 Information One of the major contributions of item response theory is the extension of the concept of reliability. the degree to which measurement is free of error). IRT offers the test information function which shows the degree of precision at different values of theta. This index is helpful in characterizing a test's average reliability. These results allow psychometricians to (potentially) carefully shape the level of reliability for different ranges of ability by including carefully chosen items. IRT findings reveal that the CTT concept of reliability is a simplification. For example. such as the two and three parameters models.. Scores at the edges of the test's range. If a different model is specified for each administration in order to achieve data-model fit. for example in order to compare two tests. such as the ratio of true and observed score variance. is the Thus more information implies less error of measurement. . it is measured using a single index defined in various ways. The item information function for the two parameter model is The item information function for the three parameter model is [19] In general. the test information function is simply the sum of the information functions of the items on the exam. in a certification situation in which a test can only be passed or failed. For other models. a very efficient test can be developed by selecting only items that have high information near the cutscore. according to Fisher information theory. where there is only a single "cutscore. item information functions are additive. reliability refers to the precision of measurement (i. or. Traditionally. Highly discriminating items have tall. But IRT makes it clear that precision is not uniform across the entire range of test scores. they contribute greatly but over a narrow range. Plots of item information can be used to see how much information an item contributes and to what portion of the scale score range. These items generally correspond to items whose difficulty is about the same as that of the cutscore. Information is also a function of the model parameters." and where the actually passing score is unimportant.e. Characterizing the accuracy of test scores is perhaps the central issue in psychometric theory and is a chief difference between IRT and CTT.Item response theory the initial validation in order to confirm the hypothesis that scores from each administration generalize to other administrations. the discrimination parameter plays an important role in the function. In the place of reliability. narrow information functions. Because of local independence. θ. generally have more error associated with them than scores closer to the middle of the range. test information functions can be shaped to control measurement error very precisely. For example. And traditionally. but most models scale the difficulty of items and the ability of people on the same metric. leading to a weighted score when the model contains item discrimination parameters. and inventories are imprecise tools. • Although CTT results have allowed important practical results.[22] Also. These IRT findings are foundational for computerized adaptive testing.or test-dependent whereas true-score is defined in CTT in the context of a specific test. the (linear) correlation between the theta estimate and a traditional score is very high. the model-based nature of IRT affords many advantages over analogous CTT findings. characterizations of error.95 or more. It is worth also mentioning some specific similarities between CTT and IRT which help to understand the correspondence between concepts.[21] While scoring is much more sophisticated with IRT. often it is . In fact. for most tests. the observed score.Item response theory 7 Scoring The person parameter represents the magnitude of latent trait of the individual. discrimination in the 2PL model is approximately a monotonic function of the point-biserial correlation. First. Lord[24] showed that under the assumption that is normally distributed. etc. Thus the difficulty of an item and the ability of a person can be meaningfully compared. This highest point is typically estimated with IRT software using the Newton-Raphson method. knowledge or even so called "test-taking skills" which may translate to a higher true-score. A person may learn skills. knowledge. The specifics depend upon the IRT model.[23] A comparison of classical and Item Response theory Classical test theory (CTT) and IRT are largely concerned with the same problems but are different bodies of theory and therefore entail different methods. but is rather based on the IRFs. but rather only have an estimate. we can never know a person's true score. A graph of IRT scores against traditional scores shows an ogive shape implying that the IRT estimates separate individuals at the borders of the range more than in the middle. All tests. but IRT allows it to vary. skill. indexed by the standard error of measurement. a portion of IRT research focuses on the measurement of change in trait level. • Another improvement provided by IRT is that the parameters of IRT models are generally not sample. primarily. questionnaires. the highest point of which is the maximum likelihood estimate of . In particular: . physical ability. Thus IRT provides significantly greater flexibility in situations where different samples or test forms are used. attitude. It is actually obtained by multiplying the item response function for each item to obtain a likelihood function. these results only hold when the assumptions of the IRT models are actually met. • CTT test scoring procedures have the advantage of being simple to compute (and to explain) whereas IRT scoring generally requires relatively complex estimation procedures.[20] It might be a cognitive ability. An important difference between CTT and IRT is the treatment of measurement error. Although the two paradigms are generally consistent and complementary.the "score" on a test with IRT . Of course. there are a number of points of difference: • IRT makes stronger assumptions than CTT and in many cases provides correspondingly stronger findings. There is some amount of random error which may push the observed score higher or lower than the true score. nothing about IRT refutes human development or improvement or assumes that a trait level is fixed. • IRT provides several improvements in scaling items and people. personality characteristic. The estimate of the person parameter . which is the human capacity or attribute measured by the test. The individual's total number-correct score is not the actual score.is computed and interpreted in a very different manner as compared to traditional scores like number or percent correct. CTT assumes that the amount of error is the same for each examinee. . Test Scoring (pp. H. it is necessary to begin with a decomposition of an IRT estimate into a true location and error. org/ rmt/ rmt34b. version 1. Stegun I. H. p. Theory and practice of fit. (1991). K. NY: The Guilford Press. Zeng. & Molenaar. and is the error association with an estimate. (1982). R. Latent Structure Analysis. Lovibond. Aitkin M. M. (1968).. expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. [19] de Ayala. 3(4). In D. Then is an estimate of the standard deviation of for person with a given weighted score and the separation index is obtained as follows where the mean squared standard error of person estimate gives an estimate of the variance of the errors. pp.. Heath.M. (1981). Danish Institute for Educational Research). The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. & Orlando. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. com/ booksProdDesc. B. G. pdf).7-16. (1992).A. Applied Psychological Measurement.A. Theory and practice of fit. nav?prodId=Book226392) [5] Nering & Ostini (http:/ / www. 129-40. [7] K. 167-170. Probit latent class analysis with dichotomous or ordered category measures: conditional independence/dependence models. R.Ability estimation with IRT. References [1] ETS Research Overview (http:/ / www. 33(2).S.144 [20] Lazarsfeld P. [22] Kolen. c988ba0e5dd572bada20bc47c3921509/ ?vgnextoid=26fdaf5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD& vgnextchannel=ceb2be3a864f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD) [2] Hambleton. (2004). J. http:/ / rasch. 46. htm [15] Goldstein. Elsevier Science Publishers. Psychometrika. 443-459. [11] Steinberg. Rasch Measurement Transactions. Thus. D (1989). p. Frederic Lord. Inc. R. [10] Andrich. J. H. (1972).D. G. htm [14] Smith. R. 42. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [9] Uebersax. ets. 2000 [12] Andrich. I.[25] IRT is sometimes called strong true score theory or modern mental test theory because it is a more recent body of theory and makes more explicit the hypotheses that are implicit within CTT.W. (2009)" (http:/ / www. N. British Educational Research Journal. Inc. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 73-140). J. Mahwah. Chicago: Scientific Software.. Sörbom(1988). (Eds. Newbury Park. where there is a higher discrimination there will generally be a higher point-biserial correlation. org/ rmt/ rmt34b. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. S (Eds). 8(2). [16] Rasch. The Rasch model still does not fit. [3] Bock R. Amsterdam. S. New York Times. in Keats. (1999). [17] Wright. Bradley A.D.Item response theory 8 where is the point biserial correlation of item i. (1990).78. D. (2000).F. if the assumption holds. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Swaminathan.A. Item response theory for items scored in two categories.. Another similarity is that while IRT provides for a standard error of each estimate and an information function. [21] "Thompson. 283-297. . com/ books/ Handbook-of-Polytomous-Item-Response-Theory-Models-isbn9780805859928) [6] Thissen. & Blinkhorn. sagepub. (1995). [18] Fischer.A. p. Taft. and Applications.D. called the separation index. (2009).M. 3(4).. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. (2001). com/ docs/ Thompson (2009) . Who Devised Testing Yardstick. Journal of Educational Measurement.H. PRELIS 1 user's manual. http:/ / rasch. assess. 23. New York: Springer. H.). G. Jöreskog and D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care. Wright. (1996). [13] Smith. Distinctions between assumptions and requirements in measurement in the Social sciences". 4. [4] Ostini & Nering (http:/ / www. North Holland. analogous to decomposition of an observed score into a true score and error in CTT. R.. . [8] Abramowitz M. February 10. CA: Sage Press.J. 196-200. (1960/1980). Handbook of Mathematical Functions. across persons. Thissen & Wainer. D. New York. & Rogers.78. The standard errors are normally produced as a by-product of the estimation process. R. Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement for Scale Scores Using IRT. Rasch Models: Foundations. To do so. Rasch Measurement Transactions. Dies at 87. Government Printing Office. Mathematical and Theoretical Systems. . (1990). 6:1. (6.12). J. S. The separation index is typically very close in value to Cronbach's alpha. Let where is the true location.W. IRT in the 1990s: Which Models Work Best? Rasch measurement transactions. Michael J. org/ portal/ site/ ets/ menuitem. it is also possible to obtain an index for a test as a whole which is directly analogous to Cronbach's alpha. (Copenhagen. 1-16. & Henry N. routledgeeducation. Washington DC: U. Lingjia. Hanson. Recent Developments. -P. R. Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed. Explanatory Item Response Models. D. jsp?_nfpb=true& _& ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED441789& ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no& accno=ED441789) [24] Lord. J. (2000).. University of Maryland. estimation. & McDonald. M. ed. (1980). This introductory book is by one of the pioneers in the field. & Wilson. S. Measuring Change in Teachers' Perceptions of the Impact that Staff Development Has on Teaching. Portions of the book are available online as limited preview at (http://books. • Embretson. F. Handbook of modern item response theory. researchers and graduate students. & Hambleton.). (2004). & Kim.) (2004). at psychologists. B.A. This book is an accessible introduction to IRT.M. New York: Springer. the traditional KR.. mainly aimed at practitioners. (1982). LA. aimed. as the title says. and Reise. fundamentals of IRT. S. 9 Additional reading Many books have been written that address item response theory or contain IRT or IRT-like models. New York: Springer. This book summaries much of Lord's IRT work. An index of person separation in latent trait theory. • De Boeck. [25] Andrich. (http:/ / eric.M.com/).J. College Park. org/ irt/ baker/) • Baker. Item response theory for psychologists. (2000). Its estimation chapter is now dated in that it primarily discusses joint maximum likelihood method rather than the marginal maximum likelihood method implemented by Darrell Bock and his colleagues.. The book will be useful for persons (who are familiar with IRT) with an interest in analyzing item response data from a Bayesian perspective. (Eds. Mahwah. 2000). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. . and the Guttman scale response pattern. It is well suited for persons who already have gained basic understanding of IRT. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. S. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans. • Lord. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. This book describes various item response theory models and furnishes detailed explanations of algorithms that can be used to estimate the item and ability parameters.) (1997). • Van der Linden. The Basics of Item Response Theory. Mahwah. Inc. gov/ ERICWebPortal/ custom/ portlets/ recordDetails/ detailmini. Bayesian Item Response Modeling: Theory and Applications New York: Springer. L. A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach. focusing on texts that provide more depth. NJ: Erlbaum.L.-H.K. April 24–28. • Baker. 9. including chapters on the relationship between IRT and classical methods. NJ: Erlbaum. J.google. P. Frank (2001). F.20 index. 95-104. F. This volume shows an integrated introduction to item response models. and is available online at (http:/ / edres. This book provides a comprehensive overview regarding various popular IRT models. (1980). Education Research and Perspectives. Mahwah. (Eds.Item response theory [23] Hall. This is a partial list. This book discusses the Bayesian approach towards item response modeling. (2010). • Fox. and several advanced topics. MD. W. New York: Marcel Dekker. is defined as the ratio of true score variance to the observed score variance : Because the variance of the observed scores can be shown to equal the sum of the variance of true scores and the variance of error scores.asp) • IRT Tutorial FAQ (http://sites.com/irt/index. this is equivalent to . the aim of classical test theory is to understand and improve the reliability of psychological tests. The description of classical test theory below follows these seminal publications.org/science/standards.john-uebersax.html) • IRT Programs from Assessment Systems Corporation (http://assess. the most important concept is that of reliability.com/site/benroydo/irt-tutorial) • An introduction to IRT (http://edres. Inc. test users never observe a person's true score. Generally speaking. The term "classical" refers not only to the chronology of these models but also contrasts with the more recent psychometric theories. only an observed score. A person's true score is defined as the expected number-correct score over an infinite number of independent administrations of the test.com/computer/sas/IRT. which is denoted as .com/stat/papers.com/stat/lta.uiuc.winsteps.org/irt/) • The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (http://www. (http://www. . Classical test theory may be regarded as roughly synonymous with true score theory. and in the population. which sometimes bear the appellation "modern" as in "modern latent trait theory".com/xcart/home.b-a-h.google. Classical test theory as we know it today was codified by Novick (1966) and described in classic texts such as Lord & Novick 1968) and Allen & Yen (1979/2002). that would be obtained if there were no errors in measurement.html) • IRT Tutorial (http://work. Definitions Classical test theory assumes that each person has a true score.psych.com) • Latent Trait Analysis and IRT Models (http://www.edu/remp/main_software. Unfortunately.ssicentral.htm) • Rasch analysis (http://www.com/software/irt/icl/) • IRT Programs from SSI.php?cat=37) • IRT Programs from Winsteps (http://www. It is assumed that observed score = true score plus some error: X observed score = T true score + E error .edu/irt/tutorial.rasch-analysis.Item response theory 10 External links • A Simple Guide to the Item Response Theory(PDF) (http://www. generally referred to collectively as item response theory.T.html) • IRT Command Language (ICL) computer program (http://www.htm) Classical test theory Classical test theory is a body of related psychometric theory that predict outcomes of psychological testing such as the difficulty of items or the ability of test-takers. pdf) • Psychometric Software Downloads (http://www.john-uebersax. X.creative-wisdom.com/) • Free IRT software (http://www.apa. In this regard. Classical test theory is concerned with the relations between the three variables These relations are used to say something about the quality of test scores. The reliability of the observed test scores .umass. The total test score is defined as the sum of the individual item scores. The fundamental property of a parallel test is that it yields the same true score and the same observed score variance as the original test for every individual. indicates redundancy of items. it is very popular among researchers. Instead. The square root of the reliability is the correlation between true and observed scores.[2] It must be noted that these 'criteria' are not based on formal arguments. Reliability is supposed to say something about the general quality of the test scores in question. Consider a test consisting of items .8 is recommended for personality research. the reliability of test scores in a population is always higher than the value of Cronbach's in that population. If we have parallel tests x and x'. which according to classical test theory is impossible. The general idea is that. for a proof). Thus. 1968. . as a result. while .9+ is desirable for individual high-stakes testing. researchers use a measure of internal consistency known as Cronbach's . Classical test theory does not say how high reliability is supposed to be.9. Calculation of Cronbach's is included in many standard statistical packages such as SPSS and SAS. so that for individual Then Cronbach's alpha equals Cronbach's can be shown to provide a lower bound for reliability under rather mild assumptions. then this means that and Under these assumptions. Around . Thus. One way of estimating reliability is by constructing a so-called parallel test. but rather are the result of convention and professional practice. Too high a value for . the higher reliability is. say over . Ch. The reliability is equal to the proportion of the variance in the test scores that we could explain if we knew the true scores. In practice the method is rarely used. Using parallel tests to estimate reliability is cumbersome because parallel tests are very hard to come by. has intuitive appeal: The reliability of test scores becomes higher as the proportion of error variance in the test scores becomes lower and vice versa. 2. it follows that the correlation between parallel test scores is equal to reliability (see Lord & Novick.Classical test theory 11 This equation. the entire exercise of classical test theory is done to arrive at a suitable definition of reliability. The extent to which they can be mapped to formal principles of statistical inference is unclear. which formulates a signal-to-noise ratio. However. this method is empirically feasible and.[1] As has been noted above. estimates of reliability can be obtained by various means. the better. Reliability Reliability cannot be estimated directly since that would require one to know the true scores. . (2002). IRT is not included in standard statistical packages like SPSS and SAS. Notes [1] Pui-Wa Lei and Qiong Wu (2007). Issue 1. IL: Waveland Press. psychonomic-journals. Principles.pearsonhighered. ISBN 978-0-471-73807-7.3758/BF03193021. "Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency". Pages 1-18 • Lord. W. Long Grove. Psychological Testing: A Practical Introduction (Second ed. PMID 12584072.Classical test theory 12 Alternatives Classical test theory is an influential theory of test scores in the social sciences. External links • International Test Commission article on Classical Test Theory (http://www. M. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brooke Cannon (2007). R. L. M. Specialized software is necessary. References • Allen. [2] Streiner. • Hogan.page) (7 November 2010).php) . In psychometrics.J. the theory has been superseded by the more sophisticated models in Item Response Theory (IRT) and Generalizability theory (G-theory). D. Behavior Research Methods 39 (3): 527–530. full. Reading MA: Addison-Welsley Publishing Company Further reading • Gregory.wiley.). .html) (21 November 2010).. Journal of Personality Assessment 80 (1): 99–103. & Yen. F.com/bookseller/ product/Psychological-Testing-History-Principles-and-Applications-6E/9780205782147. Lay summary (http://www. (1966) The axioms and principal results of classical test theory Journal of Mathematical Psychology Volume 3. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7.R. M. org/ content/ 39/ 3/ 527. Introduction to Measurement Theory.). • Novick. Thomas P. pdf). doi:10. Robert J.org/Publications/ ORTA/Classical+test+theory. M. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.intestcom. February 1966. (1968). However. Statistical theories of mental test scores. PMID 17958163.com/ WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP000675. whereas these packages routinely provide estimates of Cronbach's .1207/S15327752JPA8001_18. (2003). "CTTITEM: SAS macro and SPSS syntax for classical item analysis" (http:/ / brm. doi:10. & Novick. Psychological Testing: History. M. (2011). and Applications (Sixth ed.. Lay summary (http://www. Ordinarily. that is. Distractors are often based on ideas commonly held by students. The distractors chosen by students help researchers understand student thinking and give instructors insights into students' prior knowledge (and. concept inventories are organized as multiple-choice tests in order to ensure that they are scored in a reproducible manner. The aims of the research include ascertaining (a) the range of what individuals think a particular question is asking and (b) the most common responses to the questions. teacher-induced confusions and conceptual lacunae that interfere with learning. sometimes. a score on a criterion-referenced test reflects the amount of content knowledge a student has mastered. a feature that also facilitates administration in large classes.?’ (which students often know). To ensure interpretability. and didaskalogenic. Hestenes (1998) found that while “nearly 80% of the [students completing introductory college physics courses] could state Newton’s Third Law at the beginning of the course … FCI data showed that less than 15% of them fully understood it at the end”. Concept inventories in use The first concept inventory was developed in 1987. In its final form. Tiers of questions based on the distinction between student knowledge of outcome and mechanism provide an additional source of information for instructors. Unlike a typical. Typically. but also employed two-tiered items. and plays a role in helping educators obtain clues about students' ideas. . . the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). and Wells developed the first of the concept inventories to be widely disseminated. the student can move on to study a body of content knowledge that follows next in a learning sequence. firmly held beliefs). second-tier items ask ‘why does this happen?’ (which students often don’t know). it is common to have multiple items that address a single idea.[2] It concerned photosynthesis and respiration in plants. Criterion-referenced tests differ from norm-referenced tests in that (in theory) the former is not used to compare an individual's score to the scores of the group.[1] Ideally.Concept inventory 13 Concept inventory A concept inventory is a criterion-referenced test designed to evaluate whether a student has an accurate working knowledge of a specific set of concepts. questions and response choices on concept inventories are the subject of extensive research. . First-tier items ask ‘what happens when . Concept inventories are evaluated to ensure test reliability and validity. teacher-made multiple-choice test. upon obtaining a test score that is at or above a cutoff score. scientific misconceptions. These results have been replicated in a number of studies involving students at a range of institutions (see sources section below). the purpose of a criterion-referenced test is to ascertain whether a student mastered a predetermined amount of content knowledge. Hestenes. The concept inventory not only used misconceptions as distractors. item difficulty values ranging between 30% and 70% are best able to provide information about student understanding.[3] [4] The FCI was designed to assess student understanding of the Newtonian concepts of force. as determined by years of research on misconceptions. each question includes one correct answer and several distractors. In general. This foundation in research underlies instrument construction and design. Halloun. and have led to greater recognition in the physics education research community of the importance of students' "active engagement" with the materials to be mastered. Test developers often research student misconceptions by examining students' responses to open-ended essay questions and conducting "think-aloud" interviews with students. The distractors are incorrect answers that are usually (but not always) based on students’ commonly held misconceptions. To date.[7] For a discussion of how a number of concept inventories were developed see Beichner. Since the development of the FCI. An example of an inventory that assesses knowledge of such concepts is an instrument developed by Odom and Barrow (1995) to evaluate understanding of diffusion and osmosis. engineering. however.[6] [7] [9] statistics. These items are valuable for engaging students in collaborative problem-solving activities in class. sometimes have very different levels of difficulty. This is a schematic of the Hake plot (see Redish [5] page ) Concept inventories have been developed in physics. The very structure of multiple-choice type concept inventories raises questions involving the extent to which complex.[14] [15] [16] natural selection. costly.[2] In addition. other physics instruments have been developed. foundational scientific concepts transcend disciplinary boundaries.[20] . organized into Diagnostic Question Clusters that are available for download. A review of many concept inventories can be found in two papers (#4Libarkin and #5.Reed-Rhoads) [23] commissioned by the National Research Council. A different type of conceptual assessment has been created by the Thinking Like a Biologist research group at Michigan State University.[18] Caveats associated with concept inventory use Some concept inventories are problematic.[18] Another problem is that the multiple-choice exam overestimates knowledge of natural selection as reflected in student performance on a diagnostic essay exam and a diagnostic oral exam.[17] [18] [19] genetics. Some inventories created by scientists do not align with best practices in scale development. or other factors that can influence test performance.[11] [12] astronomy. and geoscience[22]. and difficult to implement with large numbers of students. English skills. research-based instrument (available on-line) designed to reveal students' (and teachers') understanding of foundational ideas within the (primarily) molecular biological arena. and often nuanced situations and ideas must be simplified or clarified to produce unambiguous responses. rather than test-taking ability.[8] Information about physics concept tests can be found at the NC State Physics Education Research Group website (see the external links below).[12] [18] Recently. results from the administration of the BCI indicate that students have difficulty grasping the implications of random processes in biological systems.Concept inventory 14 . they have created approximately 80 items exploring students’ understanding of matter and energy. Concept inventories created to simply diagnose student ideas may not be viable as research-quality measures of conceptual understanding. such as the essay-based approach suggested by Wright et al.[18] Although scoring concept inventories in the form of essay or oral exams is labor intensive. computer technology has been developed that can score essay responses on concept inventories .[13] basic biology. The use of multiple-choice exams as concept inventories is not without controversy. each pair designed to measure one key concept in natural selection. For example. there are non-multiple choice conceptual instruments.[10] chemistry. multiple-choice. (1998)[12] and the essay and oral exams used by Nehm and Schonfeld (2008).[19] One problem with the exam is that the members of each of several pairs of parallel items.[21] .[25] In many areas. For example. Users should be careful to ensure that concept inventories are actually testing conceptual understanding. a multiple-choice exam designed to assess knowledge of key concepts in natural selection[17] does not meet a number of standards of quality control. These include the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation developed by Thornton and Sokoloff[6] and the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment developed by Ding et al. such exams can offer a more realistic appraisal of the actual levels of students' conceptual mastery as well as their misconceptions. Another approach is illustrated by the Biological Concepts Instrument (BCI). two instruments with reasonably good construct validity.[24] which is a 24-item. (http:/ / www1. 1-24. 45. J. html [24] Klymkowsky. edu/ Readings/ Wright. 2011 (http:/ / jchemed. Merritt BW. purdue. org/ bose/ PP_Commissioned_Papers. Thinking like a biologist: Using diagnostic questions to help students reason with biological principles. Rev. pdf) [11] The Chemical Concepts Inventory. nationalacademies.org/) [16] Wilson CD. org/ abstract/ PRSTPER/ v2/ i1/ e010105) [8] Beichner. www. Assessing students' ability to trace matter in dynamic systems in cell biology. ccny. Journal of Research In Science Teaching 39: 952-978.Concept inventory in biology and other domains (Nehm. edu/ abs/ 2002JRScT. Doctoral dissertation. (in press).0.H. html) [22] http:/ / geoscienceconceptinventory. 750-762. J. html) [12] Wright et al. R. edu/ prospective/ socialsci/ psychology/ faculty/ upload/ Nehm-Schonfeld-2008-JRST. Biology concept inventories: overview. BioScience 58: 1079-85 [15] D'Avanzo C. DOI: 10. springerlink. 4501) [25] Garvin-Doxas & Klymkowsky.. Visited Feb. 2011). Adams & C. 1998. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 7/ 4/ 422?maxtoshow=& hits=10& RESULTFORMAT=1& author1=smith& author2=knight& andorexacttitle=and& andorexacttitleabs=and& andorexactfulltext=and& searchid=1& FIRSTINDEX=0& sortspec=relevance& resourcetype=HWCIT.I. 39. status. Mayfield. umd. 2011. Visited Feb. Journal of Research In Science Teaching 32: 45-61. 2011. . CBE Life Sci Educ 7(4): 422-430. Am. . 2007. R (2006). pdf) [20] Smith MK. 14. & Garvin-Doxas. International Journal of Science Education. Anderson CW. (1994). ccny. The future of natural selection knowledge measurement: A reply to Anderson et al. (http:/ / scitation. org/ home/ keycomponents/ assessment_evaluation. (https:/ / engineering. Sibley DF. (http:/ / bioliteracy. Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the C. CBE Life Sciences Education 5: 323-331. aps. org/ vsearch/ servlet/ VerityServlet?KEY=AJPIAS& CURRENT=NO& ONLINE=YES& smode=strresults& sort=rel& maxdisp=25& threshold=0& pjournals=AJPIAS& pyears=2001. Sherwood. 952A) [18] Nehm R & Schonfeld IS (2008). K. edu/ perg/ papers/ redish/ nas/ nas. Am. L. ST Physics Ed. E. (http:/ / www1. 62. 47. Ed. (http:/ / www. (http:/ / www. Wells M. Journal of Science Education and Technology. pdf) [13] (http:/ / solar. physics. 358-362. htm) [6] Thornton RK. visited Feb. Visited Feb. B. 14.biodqc. Phys.. pdf) [10] Allen. & Mayfield.HWELTR) [21] Concept Inventory Assessment Instruments for Engineering Science. edu/ prospective/ socialsci/ psychology/ faculty/ upload/ Nehm-and-Schonfeld-2010-JRST. Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs." W. Richmond G. wisc. lifescied. C. harvard. Swackhamer G 1992 Force concept inventory. cuny. (17 January 2010. 2010. Merrill J. 7 pages. 2009. Knight JK (2008)The Genetics Concept Assessment: A New Concept Inventory for Gauging Student Understanding of Genetics.1999& possible1=465& possible1zone=fpage& fromvolume=66& SMODE=strsearch& OUTLOG=NO& viewabs=AJPIAS& key=DISPLAY& docID=1& page=1& chapter=0) [5] Redish page. and next steps. aip. aip. The Physics Teacher 30: 141-166. com/ content/ 1059-0145/ preprint/ ?sort=p_OnlineDate& sortorder=desc& o=30) . (2010). Ha. edu/ aae/ adt/ ) Astronomy Diagnostic Test (ADT) Version 2.2010. Wieman. [4] Hestenes D 1998. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. (http:/ / adsabs. 75: 986-992.2000. M. K (2006) The Statistics Concept Inventory: Development and Analysis of a Cognitive Assessment Instrument in Statistics. 66:465 (http:/ / scitation. (http:/ / www. foundationcoalition. Chem. [9] Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. [3] Hestenes D. 15 References [1] "Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert-Like Thinking. Ha. R. 2011 [14] D’Avanzo.. edu/ JCEDlib/ QBank/ collection/ CQandChP/ CQs/ ConceptsInventory/ CCIIntro. 2010.[26] promising to facilitate the scoring of concept inventories organized as (transcribed) oral exams as well as essays. J. physics. montana. [17] Anderson DL. cuny. Heidemann M. Phys. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 7/ 2/ 227) [26] Nehm. Underwood. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. indiana. an open-response instrument.. Norman GJ (2002) Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory natural selection.1080/09500693. Am J Physics 66: 64-74. chem. 14. Phys. . Transforming Biology Assessment with Machine Learning: Automated Scoring of Written Evolutionary Explanations. Wood WB. R. wikispaces. (http:/ / arxiv. E. Griffith A. (http:/ / www. Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA). com/ home [23] http:/ / www7. Fisher KM. 2010. colorado. (http:/ / www..S. lifescied. Chabay. Research 2. edu/ SCI/ pubs/ Kirk Allen dissertation. Anderson CW.N. pdf) [19] Nehm R & Schonfeld IS (2010). (http:/ / prst-per. Sokoloff DR (1998) Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. 14. iFirst. (http:/ / www. & Beichner. org/ abs/ 1012.512369 [2] Odom AL. edu/ ~sdi/ ajpv3i. Barrow LH 1995 Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students' understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. org/ getabs/ servlet/ GetabsServlet?prog=normal& id=AJPIAS000066000004000338000001& idtype=cvips& gifs=yes) [7] Ding. The University of Oklahoma. physics. Parker JM. and an oral interview. Merrill JE. 2008. 1131-1160. Amer J Physics 66: 338-352. (2007). when one or more item parameters differ across groups.purdue.msu. Three generations of differential item functioning (DIF) analyses: Considering where it has been. Language Assessment Quarterly. An item does not display DIF if people from different groups have a different probability to give a certain response. and where it is going. (2000).crcstl. an item displays DIF.au/) Physics (http://www.P.edu.la.html) Diagnostic Question Clusters in Biology (http://dqc.evolutionassessment.org/home/keycomponents/assessment_evaluation.html) • • • Statistics (https://engineering. pp. More precisely.HWELTR) Molecular Life Sciences Concept Inventory (http://www. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Reise.lifescinventory.S.edu/R&E/Research. ubc. The Mantel–Haenszel and logistic regression procedures are the most widely used methods to investigate DIF.php) Chemistry (http://jchemed.montana. 223–233. vol. [2] Zumbo.Concept inventory 16 External links • • • • • • • • • • Astronomy (http://solar. pdf) . (http:/ / educ. B. Zumbo (2007)[2] offers a review of various DIF detection methods and strategies.org/contacts) Differential item functioning Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when people from different groups (commonly gender or ethnicity) with the same latent trait (ability/skill) have a different probability of giving a certain response on a questionnaire or test.[1] DIF analysis provides an indication of unexpected behavior by item on a test. it displays DIF if people from different groups of same underlying true ability have a different probability to give a certain response.edu/aae/adt/) Basic Biology (http://bioliteracy. Thus.chem.asu.edu/) Bio-Diagnostic Question Clusters (http://www. an item displays DIF when the difficulty level (b).foundationcoalition. ca/ faculty/ zumbo/ papers/ Zumbo_LAQ_reprint.D.edu/per/TestInfo. the discrimination (a) or the lower asymptotes (c) – estimated by item response theory (IRT) – of an item differs across groups.ncsu.colorado.html) Evolution Assessment (http://www.physics.biodqc.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/422?maxtoshow=&hits=10& RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=smith&author2=knight&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and& andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance& resourcetype=HWCIT..lifescied. 4.S.org) Classroom Concepts and Diagnostic Tests (http://www.edu/JCEDlib/QBank/collection/CQandChP/CQs/ConceptsInventory/ CCIIntro.edu/SCI) • Thinking Like a Biologist (http://www. where it is now. References [1] Embretson.org/cat/diagnostic/diagnostic5.wisc.flaguide.html) Genetics (http://www.edu) Engineering (http://www.E.org) Force Concept Inventory (http://modeling.biodqc. (2005). K. References • Emons. & Sijtsma. and cannot prove anything. if most examinees at a certain test site or with a certain proctor have unlikely responses. or unlikely compared with the majority of item-score vectors in the sample. 459-478. 25.Person-fit analysis 17 Person-fit analysis Person-fit analysis is a technique for determining if the person's results on a given test are valid. Meijer.. K. & Meijer. W. An item-score vector is a list of "scores" that a person gets on the items of a test... 27(6). the vector would be {1111100000}. & Sijtsma.factors that can range from something as benign as the examinee dozing off to concerted fraud efforts. Methodology review: Evaluating person-fit. W. K. an investigation might be warranted. However.H. R. local and graphical person-fit analysis using person response functions. Unfortunately. • Meijer.A. .H. This limits its practical applicability on an individual scale. where "1" is often correct and "0" is incorrect. • Emons. Psychological Methods. The validity of individual test scores may be threatened when the examinee's answers are governed by factors other than the psychological trait of interest . Person-fit methods are used to detect item-score vectors where such external factors may be relevant. 107-135.. 101-119.M. (2003). but there is no way to go back to when the test was administered and prove it. For example. and as a result. In individual decision-making in education. psychology..R. R.R. indicate invalid measurement. Person fit in order-restricted latent class models.M. if a person took a 10-item quiz and only got the first five correct. R. it might be useful on a larger scale. The results of the analysis might look like an examinee cheated. Global. Glas.. C. Applied Psychological Measurement. R. it is critically important that test users can have confidence in the test scores used. Applied Psychological Measurement. and personnel selection. 10(1).W. (2001). Sijtsma. The purpose of a person-fit analysis is to detect item-score vectors that are unlikely given a hypothesized test theory model such as item response theory. person-fit statistics only tell if the set of responses is likely or unlikely. proposed by Stanley Smith Stevens (1946). a statistical method developed and used extensively in psychometrics. which is that measurement is the numerical estimation and expression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to another (Michell. is that measurement is "the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to some rule". and academic achievement. Those who practice psychometrics are known as psychometricians. Ledyard R Tucker. Thurstone.Psychometrics 18 Psychometrics Psychometrics is the field of study concerned with the theory and technique of psychological measurement. which includes the measurement of knowledge. Two other pioneers of psychometrics obtained doctorates in the Leipzig Psychophysics Laboratory under Wilhelm Wundt: James McKeen Cattell in 1886 and Charles Spearman in 1906. and personality assessments. Henry F. others work as human resources or learning and development professionals. 1997). and that such measurements are often misused. In addition. the origin of psychometrics also has connections to the related field of psychophysics. Arthur Jensen. This definition was introduced in the paper in which Stevens proposed four levels of measurement. Francis Galton. attitudes. developed and applied a theoretical approach to measurement referred to as the law of comparative judgment. The field is primarily concerned with the construction and validation of measurement instruments such as questionnaires. tests. However. Georg Rasch. Definition of measurement in the social sciences The definition of measurement in the social sciences has a long history. abilities. A currently widespread definition. devised and included mental tests among his anthropometric measures. Johnson O'Connor. L. The psychometrician L. and (ii) the development and refinement of theoretical approaches to measurement. often referred to as "the father of psychometrics". Psychometric. an employer wanting someone for a role requiring consistent attention to repetitive detail will probably not want to give that job to someone who is very creative and gets bored easily. Frederic M. psychometric theory has been applied in the measurement of personality. this definition differs in important respects from the more classical definition of measurement adopted in the physical sciences. Lord. namely: (i) the construction of instruments and procedures for measurement. Although widely adopted. and educational measurement. an approach that has close connections to the psychophysical theory of Ernst Heinrich Weber and Gustav Fechner. L. such as with psychometric personality tests used in employment procedures: "For example."[1] Figures who made significant contributions to psychometrics include Karl Pearson. Measurement of these unobservable phenomena is difficult. All psychometricians possess a specific psychometric qualification. and while many are clinical psychologists. Kaiser. Origins and background Much of the early theoretical and applied work in psychometrics was undertaken in an attempt to measure intelligence. and beliefs. personality traits. founder and first president of the Psychometric Society in 1936. . L. It involves two major research tasks. attitudes. Critics. and much of the research and accumulated science in this discipline has been developed in an attempt to properly define and quantify such phenomena. and David Andrich. More recently. psychometrician and psychometrist appreciation week is the first week in November. Thurstone. including practitioners in the physical sciences and social activists. Spearman and Thurstone both made important contributions to the theory and application of factor analysis. have argued that such definition and quantification is impossibly difficult. 1943. . A. response was to accept the classical definition. The main research task. and tests are conducted to ascertain whether the relevant criteria have been met. is generally considered to be the discovery of associations between scores. when measurement models such as the Rasch model are employed. Although its chair and other members were physicists.Psychometrics Indeed. The committee was appointed in 1932 by the British Association for the Advancement of Science to investigate the possibility of quantitatively estimating sensory events. They need not worry about the mysterious differences between the meaning of measurement in the two sciences. nor was this the original intention when they were developed. psychologists have but to do the same. and of factors posited to underlie such associations. and mathematics. 49) These divergent responses are reflected in alternative approaches to measurement. are measurements. Some of the better known instruments include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Nevertheless. which has had considerable influence in the field. or general intelligence factor. whose chair. Psychometrics is applied widely in educational assessment to measure abilities in domains such as reading. this was by no means the only response to the report. Attitudes have also been studied extensively using psychometric approaches. 1993). p. specific criteria for measurement are stated. The committee's report highlighted the importance of the definition of measurement. An alternative conception of intelligence is that cognitive capacities within individuals are a manifestation of a general component. Such approaches provide powerful information regarding the nature of developmental growth within various domains. notably different. Contrary to a fairly widespread misconception. writing. An alternative method involves the application of unfolding measurement models. Instead. While Stevens's response was to propose a new definition. there is no compelling evidence that it is possible to measure innate intelligence through such instruments. Such approaches implicitly entail Stevens's definition of measurement. On the other hand. the committee also included several psychologists. Another. numbers are not assigned based on a rule. Measurements are estimated based on the models. intelligence tests are useful tools for various purposes. Ferguson. as reflected in the following statement: "Measurement in psychology and physics are in no sense different. developed originally by the French psychologist Alfred Binet. such as raw scores derived from assessments. Another major focus in psychometrics has been on personality testing. the Five-Factor Model (or "Big 5") and tools such as Personality and Preference Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. as well as cognitive capacity specific to a given domain. A common method in the measurement of attitudes is the use of the Likert scale. The main approaches in applying tests in these domains have been Classical Test Theory and the more recent Item Response Theory and Rasch measurement models. which requires only that numbers are assigned according to some rule. Physicists can measure when they can find the operations by which they may meet the necessary criteria." (Reese. methods based on covariance matrices are typically employed on the premise that numbers. was a physicist. which provides a basis for mapping of developmental continua by allowing descriptions of the skills displayed at various points along a continuum. in the sense of an innate learning capacity unaffected by experience. For example. in keeping with Reese's statement above. and the goal is to construct procedures or operations that provide data that meet the relevant criteria. 19 Instruments and procedures The first psychometric instruments were designed to measure the concept of intelligence. The best known historical approach involved the Stanford-Binet IQ test. the most general being the Hyperbolic Cosine Model (Andrich & Luo. then. There have been a range of theoretical approaches to conceptualizing and measuring personality. Stevens's definition of measurement was put forward in response to the British Ferguson Committee. These latter approaches permit joint scaling of persons and assessment items. may be assessed by correlating performance on two halves of a test. Among other advantages.[5] a method of determining the underlying dimensions of data. These methods allow statistically sophisticated models to be fitted to data and tested to determine if they are adequate fits. structural equation modeling[7] and path analysis represent more sophisticated approaches to working with large covariance matrices. Both reliability and validity can be assessed statistically. A measure has construct validity if it is related to measures of other constructs as required by theory. and data clustering. Item response theory models the relationship between latent traits and responses to test items. IRT provides a basis for obtaining an estimate of the location of a test-taker on a given latent trait as well as the standard error of measurement of that location. .[8] Perhaps the most commonly used index of reliability is Cronbach's α.[8] Similarly. However. Techniques in this general tradition include: factor analysis. when the criterion is collected later the goal is to establish predictive validity. the equivalence of different versions of the same measure can be indexed by a Pearson correlation. also.[6] a method for finding a simple representation for data with a large number of latent dimensions. for validity. or other characteristics obtained from a job analysis. skill. A reliable measure is one that measures a construct consistently across time. reliability is necessary. Consistency over repeated measures of the same test can be assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient. Key concepts Key concepts in classical test theory are reliability and validity. For example. There are a number of different forms of validity. which is termed split-half reliability. More recently. ability.[4] Psychometricians have also developed methods for working with large matrices of correlations and covariances. The development of the Rasch model. was explicitly founded on requirements of measurement in the physical sciences. All these multivariate descriptive methods try to distill large amounts of data into simpler structures. individuals. is represented by the Rasch model for measurement. an approach to finding objects that are like each other. In a personnel selection example. which addresses the homogeneity of a single test form. which is equivalent to the mean of all possible split-half coefficients. A usual procedure is to stop factoring when eigenvalues drop below one because the original sphere shrinks. A valid measure is one that measures what it is intended to measure. These include classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)[2] [3] An approach which seems mathematically to be similar to IRT but also quite distinctive. a university student's knowledge of history can be deduced from his or her score on a university test and then be compared reliably with a high school student's knowledge deduced from a less difficult test. in terms of its origins and features. the value of this Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for two half-tests is adjusted with the Spearman–Brown prediction formula to correspond to the correlation between two full-length tests.[8] Internal consistency. A measure may be reliable without being valid.Psychometrics 20 Theoretical approaches Psychometricians have developed a number of different measurement theories. multidimensional scaling. Criterion-related validity can be assessed by correlating a measure with a criterion measure known to be valid. test content is based on a defined statement or set of statements of knowledge. but not sufficient. Other approaches include the intra-class correlation. One of the main deficiencies in various factor analyses is a lack of consensus in cutting points for determining the number of latent factors. When the criterion measure is collected at the same time as the measure being validated the goal is to establish concurrent validity. and is called equivalent forms reliability or a similar term. The lack of the cutting points concerns other multivariate methods. Scores derived by classical test theory do not have this characteristic. which is the ratio of variance of measurements of a given target to the variance of all targets. and the broader class of models to which it belongs. and is often called test-retest reliability. and situations. Content validity is a demonstration that the items of a test are drawn from the domain being measured. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Danish Institute for Educational Research). . along with errors of measurement and related considerations under the general topic of test construction. including fairness in testing and test use. validity and reliability considerations are covered under the accuracy topic. Copenhagen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10. G. implementing. and accurate. British Journal of Psychology 88 (3): 355–383.tb02641. evaluation and documentation. and credible information about student learning and performance. T.Psychometrics and assessment of actual ability (rather than ability relative to other test-takers) must be assessed by comparing scores to those of a "norm group" randomly selected from the population. psychological testing and assessment. • Michell. Each of the standards has been placed in one of four fundamental categories to promote educational evaluations that are proper. expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. • Rasch. educational testing and assessment.2044-8295.D. useful. However. A consideration of concern in many applied research settings is whether or not the metric of a given psychological inventory is meaningful or arbitrary. • Reese.[9] Testing standards In this field.W. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation[11] has published three sets of standards for evaluations. The second major topic covers standards related to fairness in testing. and in particular educational evaluation. with three experimental examples". (1960/1980). plus testing in program evaluation and public policy. The third and final major topic covers standards related to testing applications. "The application of the theory of physical measurement to the measurement of psychological magnitudes. and The Student Evaluation Standards[14] was published in 2003. The Personnel Evaluation Standards[12] was published in 1988. and testing individuals with disabilities. doi:10. the student accuracy standards help ensure that student evaluations will provide sound. • Michell. accurate. testing in employment and credentialing. assessing and improving the identified form of evaluation.x. In fact. B (1997). feasible.1111/j. Each publication presents and elaborates a set of standards for use in a variety of educational settings. the rights and responsibilities of test takers. while. In these sets of standards. For example. Measurement in Psychology. the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing[10] place standards about validity and reliability.1177/014662169301700307. References Bibliography • Andrich. J. Evaluation standards In the field of evaluation. The standards provide guidelines for designing. those derived from item response theory are not. J. all measures derived from classical test theory are dependent on the sample tested. & Luo. including the responsibilities of test users. professional and practitioner associations frequently have placed these concerns within broader contexts when developing standards and making overall judgments about the quality of any test as a whole within a given context. (1999). in principle. "A hyperbolic cosine model for unfolding dichotomous single-stimulus responses". Applied Psychological Measurement 17 (3): 253–276. G.1997. testing individuals of diverse linguistic backgrounds. "Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology". (1993). Psychological Monographs 55: 1–89. 21 Standards of quality The considerations of validity and reliability typically are viewed as essential elements for determining the quality of any test. (1943). Wright. The Program Evaluation Standards (2nd edition)[13] was published in 1994. D. 2006.K. L. Math. [2] Embretson. Smith and W. (2008). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (http://books. ISBN 0-7619-2604-6 (cloth). "A law of comparative judgement". L. (http:/ / www. expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. edu/ Faculty/ blanton/ bj.R.org/uk/catalogue/ catalogue. Lay summary (http://www.L. (1927). [4] Rasch. Wright (Eds.L. "Past imperfect. unimelb. M. (1929). services.V. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ briefing/ ses/ ) Newbury Park. • Thurstone. Psychological Review 34 (4): 278–286. Psychol 50 (2): 175–185. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.tb01139.D. B.103.). Mahwah.au/careers/student/interviews/test. wmich. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. edu.L.L. 2nd ed. Robert F (2003). & Jaccard. L. htm) [9] Blanton. S. doi:10. [10] The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (http:/ / www. The Student Evaluation Standards: How to Improve Evaluations of Students. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. [6] Davison. J. American Psychological Association. (2006). The Program Evaluation Standards. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ PGMSTNDS-SUM. 27-41. Krieger. S. The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators. tamu. doi:10. wmich.asp?isbn=9780521844635) (28 June 2010).1126/science. (1985). html) University of Melbourne. (1992). Sage. Science 103 (2684): 677–80. [13] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.html . • Thurstone.Psychometric Assessments University of Melbourne. [3] Hambleton.Psychometrics • Stevens. G. [14] Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. [5] Thompson. apa. • S. (2000). • DeVellis. Further reading • Borsboom. Br. R. Psychometric Assessments .edu.cambridge.unimelb. "On the theory of scales of measurement". Multidimensional Scaling. CA: Corwin Press. Blinkhorn (1997). In T. J. (1988). Danish Institute for Educational Research. 61(1). Denny (2005).677.com/ ?id=BYGxL6xLokUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=scale+development#v=onepage&q&f=false) (2nd ed. arbitrary.2044-8317. ISBN 9780521844635. 2nd Edition. edu/ Siegle/ research/ Instrument Reliability and Validity/ Reliability. (1946). Statist. London: Sage Publications. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ ) [12] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. CA: Sage Publications. au/ careers/ student/ interviews/ test. Retrieved 11 August 2010 Paperback ISBN 0-7619-2605-4 . (1960/1980). Wright. (2004). pdf) American Psychologist. • http://www.K. Copenhagen. Essays in Philosophy by Seventeen Doctors of Philosophy of the University of Chicago. htm) Newbury Park. & Swaminathan. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ PERSTNDS-SUM. • Thurstone. H. [8] Reliability definitions at the University of Connecticut (http:/ / www. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. (1994).F. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.). org/ science/ standards. uconn. Arbitrary metrics in psychology. doi:10.E.1997. D.google.x. S. (http:/ / www. 22 Notes [1] Psychometric Assessments. html#overview) [11] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (http:/ / www.2684.1111/j. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications. (2003). H. (1959). PMID 17750512. (http:/ / www. S..1037/h0070288. Chicago: Open Court. (http:/ / psychology. wmich. gifted. Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. [7] Kaplan.P. NJ: Erlbaum. (http:/ / www. future conditional: fifty years of test theory".services.. The Measurement of Psychological Value. CA: Sage Publications. wmich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. & Reise. htm) Newbury Park.. The Measurement of Values. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. For example. The mathematical form of the model is provided later in this article.Psychometrics 23 External links • • • • • • • APA Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (http://www.rasch-analysis.html) Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (http://www. there is by definition a 0.psychometrika. they may be used to estimate a student's reading ability from answers to questions on a reading assessment. they are increasingly being used in other areas. Overview The Rasch model for measurement In the Rasch model. In addition. Application of the models can also provide information about how well items or questions on assessments work to measure the ability or trait. the higher the probability of a correct response on that item. When a person's location on the latent trait is equal to the difficulty of the item. Models are most often used with the intention of describing a set . the field concerned with the theory and technique of psychological and educational measurement. Specifically. The higher a person's ability relative to the difficulty of an item. esoteric and cerebral professions in America. The purpose of applying the model is to obtain measurements from categorical response data. University of Cambridge (http://www. one of the most obscure.ac.e.5 probability of a correct response in the Rasch model. May 5. in the simple Rasch model. Rasch models are particularly used in psychometrics. For example.g. or the extremity of a person's attitude to capital punishment from responses on a questionnaire. It is therefore a model in the sense of an ideal or standard. the probability of a correct response is modeled as a logistic function of the difference between the person and item parameter. html?ex=1304481600&en=bec6ba0fec0c3772&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss).cam. it provides a criterion for successful measurement. Estimation methods are used to obtain estimates from matrices of response data based on the model. is now also one of the hottest. and personality traits.uk) Psychometric Society and Psychometrika homepage (http://www. the parameters of the model pertain to the level of a quantitative trait possessed by a person or item.wmich. 2006. i. However.psychometriclab. The Rasch model is a model in the sense that it represents the structure which data should exhibit in order to obtain measurements from the data.psychometrics.edu/evalctr/jc/) The Psychometrics Centre.com) Rasch analysis in psychometrics (http://www. NY Times. including the health profession and market research because of their general applicability.apa. item parameters pertain to the difficulty of items while person parameters pertain to the ability or attainment level of people who are assessed.com/2006/05/05/education/05testers. the probability of a specified response (e. Prominent advocates of Rasch models include Benjamin D Wright.org/science/standards." Rasch model Rasch models are used for analysing data from assessments to measure variables such as abilities. Test-Makers Grow Rarer (http://www. In most contexts. The mathematical theory underlying Rasch models is in some respects the same as item response theory.org/) London Psychometric Laboratory (http://www. attitudes.nytimes.com/) As Test-Taking Grows. "Psychometrics. proponents of Rasch models argue it has a specific property that provides a criterion for successful measurement. David Andrich and Erling Andersen. right/wrong answer) is modeled as a function of person and item parameters. in educational tests. The perspective or paradigm underpinning the Rasch model is distinctly different from the perspective underpinning statistical modelling. Application of the models provides diagnostic information regarding how well the criterion is met. For the particular test on which the test characteristic curve (TCC) shown in Figure 1 is based. the precise relationship between total scores and person location estimates depends on the distribution of items on the test. The shape of the TCC is generally somewhat sigmoid as in this example. and can be applied wherever discrete data are obtained with the intention of measuring a quantitative attribute or trait. In applying the Rasch model. As a result. each total score on the test maps to a unique estimate of ability and the greater the total. Instead. 2004). Total scores do not have a linear relationship with ability estimates. the Rasch model is not altered to suit data. the relationship is approximately linear throughout the range of total scores from about 10 to 33. The rationale for this perspective is that the Rasch model embodies requirements which must be met in order to obtain measurement. Suppose the weight of an object A is measured as being substantially greater than the weight of an object B on one occasion. The total score is shown on the vertical axis. 24 Scaling When all test-takers have an opportunity to attempt all items on a single test. such as in the range on either side of 0 in Figures 1 and 2. or invariant. person and item locations are estimated on a single scale as shown in Figure 2. such as educational tests with right/wrong answers. The TCC is steeper in ranges on the continuum in which there are a number of items. then immediately afterward the weight of object B is measured as being substantially greater than the weight of object A. A useful analogy for understanding this rationale is to consider objects measured on a weighing scale. . Parameters are modified and accepted or rejected based on how well they fit the data. Data analysed using the model are usually responses to conventional items on tests. the relationship is non-linear as shown in Figure 1. the greater the ability estimate. In contrast. the objective is to obtain data which fit the model (Andrich.Rasch model of data. Once item locations are scaled. the person locations are measured on the scale. the model is a general one. This key requirement is embodied within the formal structure of the Rasch model. However. This part of the process of scaling is often referred to as item calibration. item locations are often scaled first. the smaller the proportion of correct responses. while the corresponding person Figure 1: Test characteristic curve showing the relationship between total score on a test location estimate is shown on the and person location estimate horizontal axis. based on methods such as those described below. Consequently. Rather. However. A property we require of measurements is that the resulting comparison between objects should be the same. irrespective of other factors. In educational tests. in the sense that measurement is generally understood in the physical sciences. the method of assessment should be changed so that this requirement is met. when the Rasch model is employed. the higher the difficulty of an item and hence the higher the item's scale location. in the same way that a weighing scale should be rectified if it gives different comparisons between objects upon separate measurements of the objects. which is generally through the middle range of scores on a test. from lowest to highest. the most likely pattern is a Guttman pattern or vector. A single ICC is shown and explaind in more detail in relation to Figure 4 in this article (see also the item response function).e.. while others focus on specific items or people. Thus.5 probability of a correct response to the question.0}.1.. the greater the distinction between any two points on the line. It is unnecessary for responses to conform strictly to the pattern in order for data to fit the Rasch model. the standard errors of item estimates are considerably smaller than the standard errors of person estimates because there are usually more response data for an item than for Figure 3: ICCs for a number of items. i. which quantifies the degree of uncertainty associated with the ability estimate.. Each ability estimate has an associated standard error of measurement. while the probability of responding correctly to a Figure 2: Graph showing histograms of person distribution (top) and item distribution question with difficulty greater than (bottom) on a scale the person's location is less than 0. In general. Certain tests of fit provide information about which items can be used to increase the reliability of a test by omitting or correcting problems with poor items.. the rightmost items in the same figure are the most difficult items. It is unusual for responses to conform strictly to the pattern because there are many possible patterns. while this pattern is the most probable given the structure of the Rasch model.. {1. the probability of a person responding correctly to a question with difficulty lower than that person's location is greater than 0.0. patterns which tend toward the Guttman pattern. ICCs are coloured to highlight the change in the a person.. the number of people probability of a successful response for a person with ability location at the vertical line. there is greater precision in this range since the steeper the slope. When responses of a person are listed according to item difficulty.5. attempting a given item is usually The person is likely to respond correctly to the easiest items (with locations to the left and higher curves) and unlikely to respond correctly to difficult items (locations to the right greater than the number of items and lower curves). The Item Characteristic Curve (ICC) or Item Response Function (IRF) shows the probability of a correct response as a function of the ability of persons. Generally.0. attempted by a given person. by definition.5.. In Rasch .1. the model requires only probabilistic Guttman response patterns. That is.0. the location of an item on a scale corresponds with the person location at which there is a 0.Rasch model 25 Interpreting scale locations For dichotomous data such as right/wrong answers.. Standard errors of person estimates are smaller where the slope of the TCC is steeper. However. that is. The leftmost ICCs in Figure 3 are the easiest items. Certain tests are global. Item estimates also have standard errors. Statistical and graphical tests are used to evaluate the correspondence of data with the model. e. This model has the form of a simple logistic function. This is the defining feature of the class of models. which are as follows: 1. as operationalized in a particular experimental context. However. He was concerned principally with the measurement of individuals. Rasch had applied the Poisson distribution to reading data as a measurement model. where responses are classifiable into two categories – is his most widely known and used model. because the purpose of applying the Rasch model is to obtain such measurements. and is the main focus here. Rasch's approach explicitly recognizes that it is a scientific hypothesis that a given trait is both quantitative and measurable. the defining property of Rasch models is their formal or mathematical embodiment of the principle of invariant comparison. Although this contrast exists. The separation index is a summary of the genuine separation as a ratio to separation including measurement error. This perspective is in contrast to that generally prevailing in the social sciences. measurement was regarded both as being founded in theory. but is generally larger for more extreme scores (low and high). Durtis & Hungi (2005). the number of errors made by a given individual was governed by the ratio of the text difficulty to the person's reading ability. L. namely the requirement of invariant comparison. 26 Features of the Rasch model The class of models is named after Georg Rasch. Prior to introducing the measurement model he is best known for. Thus. a Danish mathematician and statistician who advanced the epistemological case for the models based on their congruence with a core requirement of measurement in physics. congruent with the perspective articulated by Thomas Kuhn in his 1961 paper The function of measurement in modern physical science. and therefore also to the Thurstone scale. the person separation index is analogous to a reliability index. rather than being a particular IRT model. and it should also be independent of which other stimuli within the considered class were or might also have been compared. Rasch's perspective is actually complementary to the use of statistical analysis or modelling that requires interval-level measurements. 1978b). consequently. hypothesizing that in the relevant empirical context.Rasch model Measurement the person separation index is used instead of reliability indices. The Rasch model for dichotomous data has a close conceptual relationship to the law of comparative judgment (LCJ). The brief outline above highlights certain distinctive and interrelated features of Rasch's perspective on social measurement. 2. Specifically. He was concerned with establishing a basis for meeting a priori requirements for measurement deduced from physics and. Invariant comparison and sufficiency The Rasch model for dichotomous data is often regarded as an item response theory (IRT) model with one item parameter. and as being instrumental to detecting quantitative anomalies incongruent with hypotheses related to a broader theoretical framework. as is elaborated upon in the following section. However. a model formulated and used extensively by L. 3. Rasch's model for dichotomous data – i. Rasch summarised the principle of invariant comparison as follows: The comparison between two stimuli should be independent of which particular individuals were instrumental for the comparison. proponents of the model regard it as a model that possesses a property which distinguishes it from other IRT models. Rasch referred to this model as the multiplicative Poisson model. rather than with distributions among populations. As mentioned earlier. did not invoke any assumptions about the distribution of levels of a trait in a population. Applications of the Rasch model are described in Sivakumar. Thurstone (cf Andrich. the level of measurement error is not uniform across the range of a test. . in which data such as test scores are directly treated as measurements without requiring a theoretical foundation for measurement. In somewhat more familiar terms. or logit. by partitioning the responses according to raw scores is obtained without involvement of . is equal to the difference between the item locations. Hence. based on conditional on a correct response to one of two items. It is readily shown that Newton's second law entails that such ratios are inversely proportional to the ratios of the masses of the bodies. a comparison between two individuals should be independent of which particular stimuli within the class considered were instrumental for the comparison. for example. the person total score contains all information available within the specified context about the individual. Each observation represents the observable outcome of a comparison between a person and item. The Rasch model requires a specific structure in the response data. the probability of the outcome where is the ability of person and is the difficulty of item . and calculating the log odds of a correct response. It is readily shown that the log odds. is equal to is the probability of success upon interaction between the relevant person and .Rasch model Symmetrically. in the sense that the person parameter can be eliminated during the process of statistical estimation of item parameters. the model. by way of example. Rasch models embody this principle because their formal structure permits algebraic separation of the person and item parameters. an estimate More generally. That is. Although it is not uncommon to treat total scores directly as measurements. Rasch pointed out that the principle of invariant comparison is characteristic of measurement in physics using. p. 332). the same fundamental principle applies in such estimations. This observation would indicate that one or other object has a greater mass. 112–3) stated of this context: "Generally: If for any two objects we find a certain ratio of their accelerations produced by one instrument. assessment item. which can therefore be eliminated by conditioning on the total score . on the same or some other occasion (Rasch. 27 The mathematical form of the Rasch model for dichotomous data Let and be a dichotomous random variable where. In the Rasch model for dichotomous data. That is to say. then the same ratio will be found for any other of the instruments". but counts of such observations cannot be treated directly as measurements. with regard to the relevant latent trait. a two-way experimental frame of reference in which each instrument exerts a mechanical force upon solid bodies to produce acceleration. . Rasch models provide a basis and justification for obtaining person locations on a continuum from total scores on assessments. they are actually counts of discrete observations rather than measurements. Thus. 1961. in the case of a dichotomous attainment item. Rasch (1960/1980. This result is achieved through the use of conditional maximum likelihood estimation. While more involved. It can be shown that the log odds of a correct response by a person to one item. pp. in which the response space is partitioned according to person total scores. For example. and it should also be independent of which other individuals were also compared. which implies a correct response to one or other of the items. The consequence is that the raw score for an item or person is the sufficient statistic for the item or person parameter. namely a probabilistic Guttman structure. where is the total score of person n over the two items. the conditional log odds does not involve the person parameter . of correct response by a person to an item. is given by: denotes a correct response an incorrect response to a given assessment item. and the item total score contains all information with respect to item. Such outcomes are directly analogous to the observation of the rotation of a balance scale in one direction or another. a number of item parameters can be estimated iteratively through application of a process such as Conditional Maximum Likelihood estimation (see Rasch model estimation). The polytomous form of the Rasch model The polytomous Rasch model. to the probability of the discrete outcome for items with different locations on the latent continuum. There are other technical differences. in the case of an assessment item used in the context of educational psychology. these could represent the proportions of persons who answered the item correctly. where the weights are given by model parameters referred to as discrimination parameters. In figure 4. but 1PL has different motivation and subtly different parameterization. 1968). appears similar to the Rasch model in that it does not have discrimination parameters. that location at which the probability that is equal to 0. The grey line maps a person with a location of approximately 0. Lord & Novick's one-parameter logistic model. A criticism specific to the use of multiple choice items in educational assessment is that there is no provision in the model for guessing because the left asymptote always approaches a zero probability in the Rasch model. The dichotomous Rasch model is a measurement model which parameterizes each member of the sample individually. can be applied in contexts in which successive integer scores represent categories of increasing level or magnitude of a latent trait. or whether there are systematic departures from the model. 1PL. and scoring of performances by judges.5. 1968) the weighted raw score is theoretically sufficient for person parameters. though. In algebraic form it appears to be identical with the 2PL model. as required. Persons are ordered by the estimates of their locations on the latent continuum and classified into Class Intervals on this basis in order to graphically inspect the accordance of observations with the model. These variations are available in models such as the two and three parameter logistic models (Birnbaum. for example. endorsement of a statement. For example. The Polytomous response model is. which is a generalisation of the dichotomous model. a range of statistical tests of fit are used to evaluate whether departures of observations from the model can be attributed to random effects alone. grading in educational assessment. the specification of uniform discrimination and zero left asymptote are necessary properties of the model in order to sustain sufficiency of the simple. motor function.Rasch model 28 The ICC of the Rasch model for dichotomous data is shown in Figure 4. The 1PL is a descriptive model which summarizes the sample as a normal distribution. applicable to the use of Likert scales. but OPLM contains preset discrimination indexes rather than 2PL's estimated discrimination parameters. In addition to graphical inspection of data.2 on the latent continuum. However. the problem one faces in estimation with estimated discrimination parameters is that the . Lord & Novick. Other considerations A criticism of the Rasch model is that it is overly restrictive or prescriptive because it does not permit each item to have a different discrimination. such as increasing ability. by definition. and so forth. the black Figure 4: ICC for the Rasch model showing the comparison between observed and expected proportions correct for five Class Intervals of persons circles represent the actual or observed proportions of persons within Class Intervals for which the outcome was observed. In the two-parameter logistic model (2PL-IRT. As noted by these authors. There is a close conformity of the data with the model. The location of an item is. unweighted raw score. Verhelst & Glas (1995) derive Conditional Maximum Likelihood (CML) equations for a model they refer to as the One Parameter Logistic Model (OPLM). Lawrence Erlbaum.Soc. (1988). 43. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. 2-.org [1] • Birnbaum.M. (1961). • Andrich. However. values of discrimination indexes must be preset as a starting point. The Rasch Model Still Does Not Fit.. A limitation of this approach is that in practice. New York: Springer-Verlag. the values of the discrimination index are restricted to between 1 and 15. D. 29 References and further reading • Alagumalai. Danish Institute for Educational Research). In OPLM. (1978b). ISIS. constitutes an arbitrary choice of the unit in terms of which magnitudes of the latent trait are expressed or estimated.). Rasch models: foundations. That is. This means some type of estimation of discrimination is involved when the purpose is to avoid doing so. Springer-Kluwer. Comparison of classical test theory and item response Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. sufficiency of the weighted "score" in the 2PL cannot be used according to the way in which a sufficient statistic is defined. M. JSTOR [3] • Rasch. T. The function of measurement in modern physical science. G. • Baker. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (2001). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Rasch model discriminations are unknown. & Molenaar. conditional estimation is possible and the properties of the Rasch model are retained (Verhelst. Psychometrika. and 3-parameter IRT models. • Andrich. 1989. D. (1968). 52. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. recent developments and applications. Jones RW. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Glas & Verstralen. MA: Addison–Wesley. 1995. In Lord.. Comparison of 1-.G.B.D. expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. Available free with software included from IRT at Edres. the Rasch model requires that the discrimination is uniform across interactions between persons and items within a specified frame of reference (i. 357–74. Psychometrika. D.R. Verhelst & Glas. & Fox. 42. 217). • Hambleton RK. 2nd Edn (includes Rasch software on CD-ROM). College Park. BERJ 82 167–170. Relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch approaches to item scaling. Reading. meaning that the weighted raw score "is not a mere statistic. available in the ITEMS Series from the National Council on Measurement in Education [2] • Harris D. as in OPLM.M.D.W. & Novick. . • Bond. 449–460. & Hungi. Wright. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care. 161–193. Rasch models for measurement. • Andrich. The Basics of Item Response Theory. 1–16. C. • Andrich. (1960/1980). Applied Psychological Measurement. • Fischer. p.H. T. . 42. p. 121). and hence it is impossible to use CML as an estimation method" (Verhelst & Glas. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. 1995. • Goldstein H & Blinkhorn. 12(3):38–47.Br. G.S (1982). . Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences.S. 2. Applied Rasch Measurement: A book of exemplars. F. The Rasch model for dichotomous data inherently entails a single discrimination parameter which. D. 1993.e. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Bull. • Andersen. 8: 35–41 available in the ITEMS Series from the National Council on Measurement in Education [2] • Kuhn. the assessment context given conditions for assessment). Monitoring Educational Standards: an inappropriate model. (1995). as noted by Rasch (1960/1980. MD. E. If the weights are imputed instead of being estimated. S. 69–81. 1995). (Eds. University of Maryland. I. A. (1978a).Psychol. (2004). (2005). F. (1977). Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. N. (2007). D. Curtis.S (1977). (Copenhagen. 30 309–311 • Goldstein H & Blinkhorn. Berkeley. Illinois Urbana Champ. (2007). au/ ppl [8] http:/ / www. (1961). recent developments.). uiuc. On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. (1979).F. New York: Springer. [11] National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) [12] Rasch analysis [13] Rasch Measurement Transactions [14] The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing [15] References [1] http:/ / edres. com/ [14] http:/ / www. org [13] http:/ / www. berkeley. The one parameter logistic model. edu. apa. org [9] http:/ / bearcenter. Melbourne. & Carstensen. IV.W. ncme.W. One parameter logistic model (OPLM). 215–238). org/ rmt/ contents. M. B. C. pp. au/ Learning. IL: MESA Press. org/ science/ standards. edmeasurement. rasch-analysis. H.. org/ software. bsmsp/ 1200512895& page=record [5] http:/ / www. New York: Springer Verlag. Best Test Design. G. • von Davier. with information about Rasch models [7] Journal of Applied Measurement [8] Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research Center (ConstructMap software) [9] Directory of Rasch Software – freeware and paid [10] IRT Modeling Lab at U. org/ DPubS?verb=Display& version=1. uwa. • Verhelst. • Wu. Rasch Models: Foundations. Available free from Project Euclid [4] • Verhelst. 0& service=UI& handle=euclid.H. org/ irt/ [2] http:/ / www. Australia: Educational Measurement Solutions. • Wright.D.Rasch model • Rasch. H. org/ pubs/ items.A. htm [11] http:/ / work.W. rasch. M. edu/ irt/ [12] http:/ / www. C. 321–334 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. education.H. M. (1995). Fischer and I. R. rasch. N. Molenaar (Eds.. cfm [3] http:/ / www. ncme.M. California: University of California Press. rasch. Arnhem: CITO. htm [7] http:/ / www. html [6] http:/ / www.H. Multivariate and Mixture Distribution Rasch Models: Extensions and Applications. Available free from Educational Measurement Solutions [5] 30 External links • • • • • • • • • • Institute for Objective Measurement Online Rasch Resources [6] Pearson Psychometrics Laboratory. (2007). com. jstor. and applications (pp. and Glas. htm [15] http:/ / www.. Chicago. edu [10] http:/ / www. & Stone. Glas. (1995). N. org/ memos. jampress. and Verstralen. C. In G. & Adams. org/ stable/ 228678 [4] http:/ / projecteuclid. psych.D.A. Applying the Rasch model to psycho-social measurement: A practical approach. html .D. scaling is the process of measuring or ordering entities with respect to quantitative attributes or traits. Some data are measured at the ratio level. . 1. a scaling technique might involve estimating individuals' levels of extraversion. typologies are often employed to examine the intersection of two or more dimensions. For example. and market share. is a combination of several measures of consumer attitudes. any numbers used are mere labels : they express no mathematical properties. Numbers indicate the relative position of items. Different types of information are measured in different ways. extend the range of scores available and are more efficient at handling multiple items. 3. Typologies are very useful analytical tools and can be easily used as independent variables.Scale (social sciences) 31 Scale (social sciences) In the social sciences. 4. The index of consumer confidence. Examples are attitude scales and opinion scales. Numbers indicate magnitude of difference and there is a fixed zero point. Composite measures Composite measures of variables are created by combining two or more separate empirical indicators into a single measure. there are two other types of composite measures. 2. Examples are SKU inventory codes and UPC bar codes. While indexes and scales provide measures of a single dimension. Some data are measured at the ordinal level. while other methods provide only for relative ordering of the entities. That is. or the perceived quality of products. for example. Numbers indicate the magnitude of difference between items. Composite measures measure complex concepts more adequately than single indicators. In noncomparative scaling each item is scaled independently of the others (example : How do you feel about Coke?). Indexes are constructed by accumulating scores assigned to individual attributes. although since they are not unidimensional it is difficult to use them as a dependent variable. Ratios can be calculated. price. the items are directly compared with each other (example : Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?). while scales are constructed through the assignment of scores to patterns of attributes. Examples include: age. but not the magnitude of difference. Some data are measured at the interval level. but there is no absolute zero point. Comparative and non comparative scaling With comparative scaling. An example is a preference ranking. income. Indexes are similar to scales except multiple indicators of a variable are combined into a single measure. In addition to scales. costs. Data types The type of information collected can influence scale construction. sales volume. A typology is similar to an index except the variable is measured at the nominal level. Certain methods of scaling permit estimation of magnitudes on a continuum. See level of measurement for an account of qualitatively different kinds of measurement scales. sales revenue. Some data are measured at the nominal level. script.) • What should the nature and descriptiveness of the scale labels be? • What should the physical form or layout of the scale be? (graphic. Luce. 1 to 7. horizontal) • Should a response be forced or be left optional? Comparative scaling techniques • Pairwise comparison scale – a respondent is presented with two items at a time and asked to select one (example : Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke?). such as loudness or brightness to match the items. Typically the exponent of the psychometric function can be predicted from the magnitude estimation exponents of each dimension. The results are reduced to a single score on a scale. vertical. • Guttman scale – This is a procedure to determine whether a set of items can be rank-ordered on a unidimensional scale. or ratio)? What will the results be used for? Should you use a scale. on product B.). Statements are listed in order of importance. interval. The geometric mean of those numbers usually produces a power law with a characteristic exponent. • Rasch model scaling – respondents interact with items and comparisons are inferred between items from the responses to obtain scale values. Stevens people simply assign numbers to the dimension of judgment. people manipulate another dimension. simple linear. The rating is scaled by summing all responses until the first negative response in the list. • Magnitude estimation scale – In a psychophysics procedure invented by S. ordinal. Rasch models bring the Guttman approach within a probabilistic framework. In cross-modality matching instead of assigning numbers. credits. • Bogardus social distance scale – measures the degree to which a person is willing to associate with a class or type of people. Respondents are subsequently also scaled based on their responses to items given the item scale values. The Bradley–Terry–Luce (BTL) model (Bradley and Terry. S.). . It asks how willing the respondent is to make various associations. 1952. how much would you spend on product A. Thurstone's Law of comparative judgment can also be applied in such contexts. This is an ordinal level technique. or points and asked to allocate these to various items (example : If you had 100 Yen to spend on food products. −3 to +3)? Should there be an odd or even number of divisions? (Odd gives neutral center value. 1959) can be applied in order to derive measurements provided the data derived from paired comparisons possess an appropriate structure. It utilizes the intensity structure among several indicators of a given variable. Krus and Kennedy (1977) elaborated the paired comparison scaling within their domain-referenced model. The Rasch model has a close relation to the BTL model. etc. specifically. • Rank-ordering – a respondent is presented with several items simultaneously and asked to rank them (example : Rate the following advertisements from 1 to 10. on product C. index. This is an ordinal level technique. There are also non-comparative versions of this scale. This is an ordinal level technique when a measurement model is not applied. • Q-Sort – Up to 140 items are sorted into groups based a rank-order procedure. • Constant sum scale – a respondent is given a constant sum of money.Scale (social sciences) 32 Scale construction decisions • • • • • • • What level of data is involved (nominal. even forces respondents to take a non-neutral position. or typology? What types of statistical analysis would be useful? Should you use a comparative scale or a noncomparative scale? How many scale divisions or categories should be used (1 to 10. The Guttman scale is related to Rasch measurement. Krus and Ney. Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions. The same basic format is used for multiple questions. Unidimensional Scaling [2]. The coefficient of reproducibility indicates how well the data from the individual measures included in the scale can be reconstructed from the composite scale. John P.Scale (social sciences) 33 Non-comparative scaling techniques • Continuous rating scale (also called the graphic rating scale) – respondents rate items by placing a mark on a line. Internal consistency reliability checks how well the individual measures included in the scale are converted into a composite measure. Further reading • DeVellis. and nomological validity (Campbell and Fiske. from zero to 100) under the line. Content validation (also called face validity) checks how well the scale measures what is supposed to measured. Two examples are multi dimensional scaling and conjoint analysis. • Phrase completion scales – Respondents are asked to complete a phrase on an 11-point response scale in which 0 represents the absence of the theoretical construct and 10 represents the theorized maximum amount of the construct being measured. 1978). Milton (1981). Scales and indexes have to be validated. Scale Development: Theory and Applications [1] (2nd ed. Scale evaluation Scales should be tested for reliability. Beverly Hills & London: SAGE Publications. Robert F (2003). generalizability. and the composite scale itself. The same format is used for multiple questions. ISBN 0-8039-1736-8. Construct validation checks what underlying construct is being measured. and validity. Alternative forms reliability checks how similar the results are if the research is repeated using different forms of the scale. Scoring and codification is difficult. London: SAGE Publications. • Stapel scale – This is a unipolar ten-point rating scale. 1959. There are three variants of construct validity. Each attribute requires a scale with bipolar terminal labels. • Mathematically derived scale – Researchers infer respondents’ evaluations mathematically. called scale points. retrieved 11 August 2010 Paperback ISBN 0-7619-2605-4 • Lodge. • Semantic differential scale – Respondents are asked to rate on a 7 point scale an item on various attributes. Reliability is the extent to which a scale will produce consistent results. It ranges from +5 to −5 and has no neutral zero point. There are sometimes a series of numbers. retrieved 11 August 2010 . indicators not included in the scale.).to nine-point scale. discriminant validity. Edward G (1981). (say. Test-retest reliability checks how similar the results are if the research is repeated under similar circumstances. Beverly Hills & London: SAGE Publications. They are convergent validity. ISBN 0-7619-2604-6 (cloth). Criterion validation checks how meaningful the scale criteria are relative to other possible criteria. Generalizability is the ability to make inferences from a sample to the population. Internal validation checks the relation between the individual measures included in the scale. • Thurstone scale – This is a scaling technique that incorporates the intensity structure among indicators. & Carmines. given the scale you have selected. • Likert scale – Respondents are asked to indicate the amount of agreement or disagreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) on a five. The line is usually labeled at each end. This categorical scaling procedure can easily be extended to a magnitude estimation procedure that uses the full scale of numbers rather than verbal categories. External validation checks the relation between the composite scale and other indicators of the variable. ISBN 0-8039-1747-3 • McIver. • Hodge. google. 37. Kempf-Leonard (Editor). 324–345. & Terry. Wiley. D. Psychological Bulletin. M. wikibooks. (1978) Convergent and discriminant validity in item analysis. 27(1). (2005). D. 38.D. the method of paired comparisons. P. (1977) Normal scaling of dominance matrices: The domain-referenced model. 3. [4] • Luce. Educational and Psychological Measurement. • Hodge. D. & Ney. In K. R. net/ Scaling/ Domain%20Referenced%20Scaling/ Domain-Referenced%20Scaling. D. R. J. google. Educational and Psychological Measurement. San Diego: Academic Press. visualstatistics. I. org/ wiki/ Handbook_of_Management_Scales . Phrase Completions: An alternative to Likert scales. 189–193 (Request reprint). F. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. Biometrika. visualstatistics. J. D. Phrase Completion Scales. com/ books?id=BYGxL6xLokUC& printsec=frontcover& dq=scale+ development#v=onepage& q& f=false http:/ / books. htm http:/ / en. Wikibooks [5] References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] http:/ / books.E. & Kennedy. 53–62). (1959): Individual Choice Behaviours: A Theoretical Analysis. W. net/ Statistics/ Item%20Analysis%20CD%20Validity/ Item%20Analysis%20CD%20Validity. D. Lists of related topics • List of marketing topics • List of management topics • List of economics topics Links • Handbook of Management Scales – Multi-item metrics to be used in research. [3] • Krus. (1952): Rank analysis of incomplete block designs. 39.Scale (social sciences) 34 References • Bradley. R. (2003). 45–55. 56. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. pp. H. & Gillespie. D. New York: J. Social Work Research. com/ books?id=oL8xP7EX9XIC& printsec=frontcover& dq=unidimensional+ scaling#v=onepage& q& f=false http:/ / www. 81–105. 135–137 (Request reprint). F. (Vol. T. R. R. & Fiske. • Campbell. htm http:/ / www. • Krus. G.A. D. & Gillespie. g. The consistency also permits more reliable comparison of outcomes across all test takers. arithmetic. the examinations were institutionalized during the 6th century CE. It is because of this that the first European implementation of standardized testing did not occur in Europe proper.[2] Any test in which the same test is given in the same manner to all test takers is a standardized test. The Matura is standardized so that universities can easily compare results from students across the entire country. Standardized tests are designed in such a way that the questions. modeled on the Chinese mandarin examinations[4] . civil law. one group is permitted far less time to complete the test than the next group). In this form. but in British India. revenue and taxation. Britain Standardized testing was introduced into Europe in the early 19th century. Non-standardized testing gives significantly different tests to different test takers. the same answer is counted right for one student. or evaluates them differently (e. Thomas Taylor Meadows.g. or "standard". in the early 19th century. writing. Standardized tests are perceived as being more fair than non-standardized tests. not be high-stakes tests. through the advocacy of British colonial administrators.. the studies (military strategies. The opposite of a standardized test is a non-standardized test. or gives the same test under significantly different conditions (e. British "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism. agriculture and geography) were added to the testing. manner. standard manner. scoring procedures. under the Sui Dynasty.[5] Inspired by the Chinese use of standardized testing. and interpretations are [1] consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined."[5] This practice of standardized testing was later adopted in the late 19th century by the British mainland. Standardized tests need Young adults in Poland sit for their Matura exams. but wrong for another student). Later. standardized testing was not traditionally a part of Western pedagogy. China. conditions for administering. the most "persistent" of which was Britain's consul in Guangzhou. archery and horsemanship. based on the sceptical and open-ended tradition of debate inherited from Ancient Greece. time-limited tests.Standardized test 35 Standardized test A standardized test is a test that is administered and scored in a consistent. and knowledge of the rituals and ceremonies of both public and private parts. The parliamentary debates that ensued made many references to the "Chinese mandarin system. or multiple-choice tests.[4] Meadows warned of the collapse of the British Empire if standardized testing was not implemented throughout the empire immediately.[4] Prior to their adoption. History China The earliest evidence of standardized testing was in China. Western academia favored non-standardized assessments using essays written by students."[4] ..[3] where the imperial examinations covered the Six Arts which included music. Sometimes states pay to have two or more scorers read each paper. essays and other open-ended responses are graded according to a pre-determined assessment rubric by trained graders.Standardized test It was from Britain. 36 United States Further information: List of standardized tests in the United States The use of standardized testing in the United States is a 20th-century phenomenon with its origins in World War I and the Army Alpha and Beta tests developed by Robert Yerkes and colleagues. or nearly any other form of assessment. however. Multiple-choice and true-false items are often chosen because they can be given and scored inexpensively and quickly by scoring special answer sheets by computer or via computer-adaptive testing. which is why computer scoring is preferred when feasible. if their scores do not agree. true-false. not only throughout the British Commonwealth.. which are relatively inexpensive to score.[7] Scoring issues Human scoring is often variable. For example. depending on the test and the scoring session. Moreover. known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 further ties public school funding to standardized testing. as graders might show favoritism or might disagree with each other about the relative merits of different answers.[8] Agreement between scorers can vary between 60 to 85 percent. the lack of a standardized process introduces a substantial source of measurement error. . More recently. Most commonly. some believe that poorly paid employees will score tests badly. that standardized testing spread. the need for the federal government to make meaningful comparisons across a highly de-centralized (locally controlled) public education system has also contributed to the debate about standardized testing. US Public Law 107-110. essays). people tests. the Graduate Record Exam is a computer-adaptive assessment that requires no scoring by people (except for the writing portion). In other instances.[8] Open-ended components of tests are often only a small proportion of the test. are not scored by people.e.[6] In the United States.[4] Its spread was fueled by the Industrial Revolution. but is also done. Grading essays by computer is more difficult. but to Europe and then America. then the paper is passed to additional scorers. Given the large number of school students during and after the Industrial Revolution. authentic assessments. a major test includes both human-scored and computer-scored sections. computer (i. it has been shaped in part by the ease and low cost of grading of multiple-choice tests by computer. open-ended assessment of all students decreased. Some standardized tests have short-answer or essay writing components that are assigned a score by independent evaluators who use rubrics (rules or guidelines) and benchmark papers (examples of papers for each possible score) to determine the grade to be given to a Some standardized testing uses multiple-choice response. essay questions. are used to score items that are not able to be scored easily by but any form of assessment can be used. including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that required standardized testing in public schools. when compulsory education laws increased student populations. Design and scoring Standardized testing can be composed of multiple-choice. For example. Most assessments. [15] This is often contrasted with grades on a school transcript. including grades and test scores. plus testing in program evaluation and public policy. useful. and credible information about student learning and performance. the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation[10] has published three sets of standards for evaluations. accurate. differences in teaching style. Norm-referenced score interpretations compare test-takers to a sample of peers. professional and practitioner associations frequently have placed these concerns within broader contexts when developing standards and making overall judgments about the quality of any standardized test as a whole within a given context. difficulty of a given teacher's curriculum.Standardized test 37 Score There are two types of standardized test score interpretations: a norm-referenced score interpretation or a criterion-referenced score interpretation. For example. the student accuracy standards help ensure that student evaluations will provide sound. and accurate. Each publication presents and elaborates a set of standards for use in a variety of educational settings. That . This makes standardized tests useful for admissions purposes in higher education. while standards-based assessments are based on the belief that all students can succeed if they are assessed against standards which are required of all students regardless of ability or economic background. Criterion-referenced score interpretations compare test-takers to a criterion (a formal definition of content). credentialing. Testing standards In the field of psychometrics. which measures success by rank ordering students using a variety of metrics. It may be difficult to account for differences in educational culture across schools. The Personnel Evaluation Standards[11] was published in 1988. where a school is trying to compare students from across the nation or across the world. and in particular educational evaluation. feasible. and techniques and biases that affect grading. The third and final major topic covers standards related to testing applications. Each of the standards has been placed in one of four fundamental categories to promote educational evaluations that are proper. the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing[14] place standards about validity and reliability. A well designed standardized test provides an assessment of an individual's mastery of a domain of knowledge or skill which at some level of aggregation will provide useful information. Advantages One of the main advantages of standardized testing is that the results can be empirically documented. assessing and improving the identified form of evaluation. which are assigned by individual teachers. Standards The considerations of validity and reliability typically are viewed as essential elements for determining the quality of any standardized test. along with errors of measurement and issues related to the accommodation of individuals with disabilities. the test scores can be shown to have a relative degree of validity and reliability. However. The standards provide guidelines for designing. Evaluation standards In the field of evaluation. In these sets of standards.[9] Norm-referenced test score interpretations are associated with traditional education. validity and reliability considerations are covered under the accuracy topic. Another advantage is aggregation. regardless of the scores of other examinees. The Program Evaluation Standards (2nd edition)[12] was published in 1994. and The Student Evaluation Standards[13] was published in 2003. as well as results which are generalizable and replicable. therefore. These may also be described as standards-based assessments as they are aligned with the standards-based education reform movement. implementing. analysts estimate an expected score for each student. what students learn outside of school. and the students' innate intelligence.[16] However. while individual assessments may not be accurate enough for practical purposes. if the wrong answers were blind guesses. or other groups may well provide useful information because of the reduction of error accomplished by increasing the sample size. when more than one step for solution is required. which by definition give all test-takers the same test under the same (or reasonably equal) conditions. such as reading and math skills. They argue that testing does and should focus educational resources on the most important aspects of education — imparting a pre-defined set of knowledge and skills — and that other aspects are either less important. branches of a company.Standardized test is. Scoring information loss When tests are scored right-wrong. The fact that the answer is correct does not indicate which of the several possible procedures were used. because the students' scores are influenced by three things: what students learn in school. Value-added modeling has been proposed to cope with this criticism by statistically controlling for innate ability and out-of-school contextual factors.[17] The school only has control over one of these three factors. In addition.[18] In a value-added system of interpreting test scores. if wrong answers reflect interpretation departures from the expected one. schools use the tests to define curriculum and focus instruction. when standardized tests are the primary factor in accountability. 38 Disadvantages and criticism Standardized tests are useful tools for assessing student achievement. the mean scores of classes. schools. there would be no information to be found among these answers. On the other hand. Standardized tests. based on factors such as the student's own previous test scores. socioeconomic status. When the student supplies the answer (or shows the work) this information is readily available from the original documents. these answers should show an ordered relationship to whatever the overall test is measuring. and can be used to focus instruction on desired outcomes. and how the subject is tested often becomes a model for how to teach the subject. Supporters of standardized testing respond that these are not reasons to abandon standardized testing in favor of either non-standardized testing or of no assessment at all. a correct answer can be achieved using memorization without any profound understanding of the underlying content or conceptual structure of the problem posed. primary language. are also perceived as being more fair than assessments that use different questions or different conditions for students according to their race. or should be added to the testing scheme. but rather criticisms of poorly designed testing regimes. The number of right answers or the sum of item scores (where partial credit is given) is assumed to be the appropriate and sufficient measure of current performance status. While it is possible to use a standardized test without letting its contents determine curriculum and instruction. Second. a secondary assumption is made that there is no meaningful information in the wrong answers. critics feel that overuse and misuse of these tests harms teaching and learning by narrowing the curriculum. frequently. or socioeconomic status. This departure should be dependent upon the level of psycholinguistic maturity of the student choosing or giving the answer in the vernacular in which the test is written. The difference between the student's expected score and actual score is presumed to be due primarily to the teacher's efforts. Second. . an important assumption has been made about learning. Uncritical use of standardized test scores to evaluate teacher and school performance is inappropriate. Critics say that "teaching to the test" disfavors higher-order learning. According to the group FairTest. what is not tested is not taught. In the first place. there are often a variety of approaches to answering that will lead to a correct result. or other considerations. are standard practice for item development among professionals. Some standardized tests include essay questions.[23] 39 Educational decisions Test scores are in some cases used as a sole. or class . although topic-based subtest scores are sometimes provided. Testing bias occurs when a test systematically favors one group over another. Recently. and some have criticized the effectiveness of the grading methods. Generalized tests such as the SAT or GRE are more often used as one measure among several. for example. partial computerized grading of essays has been introduced for some tests. scoring a test right–wrong loses 1) how students achieved their correct answers. Critics allege that test makers and facilitators tend to represent a middle class. Other applications include tracking (deciding whether a student should be enrolled in the "fast" or "slow" version of a course) and awarding scholarships. Third.[22] Not all tests are well-written. even though both groups are equal on the trait the test measures. However. while still providing a numerical scale to establish current performance status and to track performance change. many colleges and universities automatically translate scores on Advanced Placement tests into college credit. white background.Standardized test In this second case it should be possible to extract this order from the responses to the test items. This massive loss of information can be explained by the fact that the "wrong" answers are removed from the test information being collected during the scoring process and is no longer available to reveal the procedural error inherent in right-wrong scoring. Critics claim that standardized testing match the values. the more common practice is to report the total score or a rescaled version of it. A solution to this problem. or placement in more advanced courses. because the wrong answers are discarded during the scoring process. Some public institutions have cutoff scores for the SAT. For example. habits. or poor coverage of the desired curriculum. This commentary suggests that the current scoring procedure conceals the dynamics of the test-taking process and obscures the capabilities of the students being assessed. The result of this procedural error is to obscure of the diagnostic information that could help teachers serve their students better. it is important to note that the highest scoring groups are not people of that background. containing multiple-choice questions with ambiguous answers. but rather tend to come from Asian populations. It further prevents those who are diligently preparing these tests from being able to observe the information that would otherwise have alerted them to the presence of this error. when making admissions decisions. this chapter reports that the recoverable information explains between two and three times more of the test variability than considering only the right answers. mandatory. middle-class background. the Rasch model for instance. This RSE approach provides an interpretation of the thinking processes behind every answer (both the right and the wrong ones) that tells teachers how they were thinking for every answer they provide. Thus. Current scoring practice oversimplifies these data in the initial scoring step. This further collapse of the test results systematically removes all the information about which particular items were missed. However. or primary criterion for admissions or certification. and language of the test makers.S. The procedure bypasses the limitations produced by the linear dependencies inherent in test data. In the United States. 2) what led them astray towards unacceptable answers and 3) where within the body of the test this departure from expectation occurred. some U. being that most tests come from a white. The General Educational Development test is often used as an alternative to a high school diploma. known as Response Spectrum Evaluation (RSE). Adequate scores on these exit exams are required for high school graduation. GPA. This rescaling is intended to compare these scores to a standard of some sort. satisfaction of graduation requirements.[19] Such extraction processes.[21] Among other findings. attempts to interpret these answers for the information they might contain is seldom undertaken. states require high school graduation examinations. which is even more controversial.[20] is currently being developed that appears to be capable of recovering all three of these forms of information loss. and Graduation" (http:/ / books. [18] Hassel. wmich. (2008) "Ohio Value-Added Primer. htmlComputers) by Jay Mathews. com/ cgi-bin/ texis. (2007). com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A30854-2004Jul31. pdf [19] Powell. org/ pubs-reports/ downloads/ teachers/ StandAssessRes. wmich. N. nap. & Hezlett. cgi/ web/ vortex/ display?slug=4039520& date=20000827& query=wasl+ pearson+ pay+ hour). html#overview) [15] Kuncel. ISBN 978-1-4419-1550-1 [22] Race and intelligence (test data)#IQ test score gap in the US [23] Weighing In On the Elements of Essay (http:/ / www. edexcellence. 142. org) [21] Powell. which has allowed many people to have their skills recognized even though they did not meet traditional criteria. prerequisite courses. The Student Evaluation Standards: How to Improve Evaluations of Students. CA: Corwin Press. A01. The National Academy of Sciences recommends that major educational decisions not be based solely on a test score. britannica. [13] Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. seattletimes. apa. (http:/ / www. org/ content/ pro_collegework. 52. aft. [16] The College Work Readiness Assessment. Educational Leadership. nwsource. (2003). a $10-an-hour temp assigns a score to your child's test" [9] Where We Stand: Standards-Based Assessment and Accountability (American Federation of Teachers) (http:/ / www. Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. [24] "High Stakes: Testing for Tracking. since test scores are nearly always combined with other minimal criteria such as number of credits. 847–865 [20] "A Paradigm Shift in Test Scoring!" (http:/ / www. htm) Newbury Park. [7] ETS webage (http:/ / www.[24] The use of minimum cut-scores for entrance or graduation does not imply a single standard. for creating classes of applicants to automatically accept or reject. [6] Gould. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ PERSTNDS-SUM. htm [17] Popham. an essay. (1992) The Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement. or the fulfillment of other criteria is automatically assumed.Standardized test rank. better-schooling-systems. & Rosch." Fordham Foundation.. 56(6) 8–15. 8–15. p. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ ) [11] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. W. Washington Post. The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators. CA: Sage Publications. wmich. One exception to this rule is the GED. http:/ / www. for the reasons noted above. Science. Why Standardized Test Scores Don't Measure Educational Quality. htm) Newbury Park. [14] The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (http:/ / www. Edwards. 1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/ ?vgnextoid=302433c7f00c5010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD& vgnextchannel=7196e3b5f64f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD#Scoring_and_Reporting) about scoring the GRE. retrieved online. W. S. source no longer available Popham. [8] Houtz. and Shklov. CA: Sage Publications. com/ EBchecked/ topic/ 112424/ Chinese-civil-service) Mark and Boyer (1996). B. (1994). objective standard that minimizes the potential for political influence or favoritism. Educational Leadership. 1 Aug 2004. washingtonpost.J. etc. Heavy reliance on standardized tests for decision-making is often controversial. (1982) A Nation of Morons. 349–352. Test scores are often perceived as the "sole criteria" simply because they are the most difficult. cae. Jolayne (August 27. R. wmich. Supporters argue that test scores provide a clear-cut. 40 References [1] [2] [3] [4] Sylvan Learning glossary. New York: Springer. attendance. C. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ PGMSTNDS-SUM. (http:/ / www. J. [12] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age: Making a Difference through Cognitive Approaches. Chapter 3 in. (1999). (1988). N. ets. edu/ evalctr/ jc/ briefing/ ses/ ) Newbury Park. such as classroom grades or brief individual assessments (written in prose) from teachers. pdf/ ) [10] Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (http:/ / www. Jay C. org/ portal/ site/ ets/ menuitem.J. The Program Evaluation Standards. Encyclopedia Brittanica (http:/ / www. (2010) Testing as Feedback to Inform Teaching. Critics often propose emphasizing cumulative or even non-numerical measures. http:/ / www. New Scientist (6 May 1982). 315.J. J. [5] Kazin. (1999). 56(6). and Rothman (2010). 1080-81. 2nd Edition. 2000) "Temps spend just minutes to score state test A WASL math problem may take 20 seconds. (http:/ / www. A. Seattle Times "In a matter of minutes. S. 9-10. org/ science/ standards. edu/ html/ highstakes/ ) . net/ doc/ Ohio_Value_Added_Primer_FINAL_small. 21⁄2 minutes" (http:/ / archives. Promotion. it would be possible to estimate how the consistency of quality ratings would change if consumers were asked 10 questions instead of 2.edu/evalctr/jc/) • Standardized Testing in School (http://www.dianeravitch.wmich. rater. time. it is necessary to determine which facet will serve as the object of measurement (e. Overview In G theory.g.Standardized test 41 Further reading • Ravitch. items/forms. The remaining facets of interest are then considered to be sources of measurement error. (1963). it is therefore possible to examine how the generalizability coefficients (similar to reliability coefficients in Classical test theory) would change under different circumstances. raters. Boyer. a soft drink company might be interested in assessing the quality of a new product through use of a consumer rating scale. the researcher must carefully consider the ways in which he/she hopes to generalize any specific results. In other cases it may be a group or performers such as a team or classroom. and consequently determine the ideal conditions under which our measurements would be the most reliable.e. setting). The usefulness of data gained from a G study is crucially dependent on the design of the study. Facets are similar to the “factors” used in analysis of variance. Ideally. and will drive the design of a G study in different ways.C. and settings among other possibilities. It is particularly useful for assessing the reliability of performance assessments. study. or D. in The Schools We Deserve (New York: Basic Books. nearly all of the measured variance will be attributed to the object of measurement (e. Mark W. G. William W. “The Uses and Misuses of Tests” (http://www. R. or if 1. By employing simulated D studies..worknwoman. 172–181.g. Is it important to generalize from one setting to a larger number of settings? From one rater to a larger number of raters? From one set of items to a larger set of items? The answers to these questions will vary from one researcher to the next. Diane.. pp.The higher civil service in the United States: quest for reform. & Gleser.html) Generalizability theory Generalizability theory. By employing a D study. the systematic source of variance) for the purpose of analysis. and may include persons.J. investigating. The results from a G study can also be used to inform a decision. individual differences). 1996) External links • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (http://www.com/articles/st_testing2. In most cases. the object of measurement will be the person to whom a number/score is assigned.shtml) • The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (http://www. Nageswari. with only a negligible amount of variance attributed to the remaining facets (e. L. 1985)..g. is a statistical framework for conceptualizing.org/science/standards. It is used to determine the reliability (i.000 consumers rated the soft drink instead of 100. or G Theory. Therefore. . sources of variation are referred to as facets. we can ask the hypothetical question of “what would happen if different aspects of this study were altered?” For example. In addition to deciding which facets the researcher generally wishes to examine. reproducibility) of measurements under specific conditions. In a D study.. (University of Pittsburgh Press. and designing reliable observations.pdf). These facets are potential sources of error and the purpose of generalizability theory is to quantify the amount of error caused by each facet and interaction of facets.apa. time.com/uses_and_misuses. It was originally introduced in Cronbach. • Huddleston. L.M. Generalizability theory acknowledges and allows for variability in assessment conditions that may affect measurements. This may be suitable in the context of highly controlled laboratory conditions. or (b) make intra-individual comparisons (i. L. The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. • Chiu. An example of an absolute. • Crocker. R. Thousand Oaks. Readers interested in learning more about G theory are encouraged to seek out publications by Brennan (2001).e.rasch. R. (1986).C. T is the true score. Nanda. CTT only allows us to estimate one type of error at a time.edu/faculty/matt/Pubs/GThtml/ GTheory_GEMatt. Matt.. (2001). a child’s score on an achievement test is used to determine eligibility for a gifted program). or criterion-referenced. L. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory.. 137-163. • Shavelson. time.. and/or Shavelson and Webb (1991). it is unrealistic to expect that the conditions of measurement will remain constant. J.. where X is the observed score. New York: Springer-Verlag. comparing previous versus current performance within the same individual). decision would be when an individual’s test score is compared to a cut-off score to determine eligibility or diagnosis (i..org/rmt/rmt71h. but variance is a part of everyday life. Chiu (2001). New York: Harcourt Brace.C.e. & Rajaratnam. • Cronbach. (2001). & Algina. such as setting. and raters. N. Gleser. G. External links • Georg E.J. Essentially it throws all sources of error into one error term. Perhaps the most famous model of CTT is the equation . for example. In contrast. and e is the error involved in measurement. Theory of generalizability: A liberation of reliability theory..J.psychology. Generalizability Theory. Nageswari. N. The type of decision that the researcher is interested in will determine which formula should be used to calculate the generalizability coefficient (similar to a reliability coefficient in CTT). In field research. CA: Sage. New York: John Wiley. & Gleser. Scoring performance assessments based on judgements: generalizability theory. L. 16. such as rater or instrument error. or norm-referenced. Notes References • Brennan.J.e. a child’s score on a reading subtest is used to determine which reading group he/she is placed in). New York: Kluwer. Although e could represent many different types of error. R.html) • Rasch-based Generalizability Theory (http://www. (1991). & Webb. (1972).Generalizability theory 42 Comparison with classical test theory The focus of classical test theory (CTT) is on determining error of the measurement. (1963).htm) . Generalizability Theory: A Primer. items. an example of a relative. Another important difference between CTT and G theory is that the latter approach takes into account how the consistency of outcomes may change if a measure is used to make absolute versus relative decisions. C. The British Journal of Statistical Psychology.C. • Cronbach. Generalizability Theory (http://www. G. The advantage of G theory lies in the fact that researchers can estimate what proportion of the total variance in the results is due to the individual factors that often vary in assessment.. decision would be when the individual’s test score is used to either (a) determine relative standing as compared to his/her peers (i.W.sdsu. H. Transmissionelement. 246 anonymous edits Generalizability theory  Source: http://en. Danielkueh.Wolfowitz. Jaxl. Ellywa. Geniac. Saucepan.u. Goodvac. Tsemii.org/w/index. R'n'B. Junglecat. Crystallina. Powell. TinJack. Nentrex. Courcelles.php?oldid=450554004  Contributors: 1000Faces. Dwikiv. Wa2ise. MegaSloth. Fnielsen. Neilc. TonyW. Barticus88. Chowbok. Tomo. Indopug. LHOON. Beichner. Dialectric.edu. Naddy. Karl-Henner. Holon. Michael Hardy. Iss246. Fsiler. Tasuna. Lear's Fool. Satori Son. Yizzerin. Everyking. Transmissionelement. Sam1450. Mattisse. Ziggurat. Iulus Ascanius.php?oldid=455130380  Contributors: Andycjp. MissionNPOVible. Alterego. Wiarthurhu. Yellowdesk. Stevertigo. Ronz. JivaGroup. Cassmus. The Rambling Man. Commenzky.php?oldid=456170750  Contributors: AndrewHowse. Chris53516. Jusdafax. Falcon Kirtaran. Avalon. Jeffmcneill. Cybercobra. Beland. Iulus Ascanius. Lgallindo. C.org/w/index. Michael Hardy. Lupo. AerobicFox. Mangotree. John FitzGerald. Samw. Kiefer. Afterwriting. Wotnow. Glenn.org/w/index. Seaphoto. Twinkle2003. Meekywiki. SpuriousQ. Pmetric. Oleg Alexandrov. BartlebytheScrivener. Taak. King of Hearts. Inwind. Sortior. DerBorg. JaGa. Sharraleigh. Mjb. Stewartadcock. JonHarder. BrotherGeorge. OGoncho. Fluffernutter. Yardcock. ATBS. RichardF. Mr pand. Vicarious. Mattisse. ERK. Blassen. Philip Trueman. Holon. Exigentsky. Winsteps. Ioannes Pragensis. Psychdataguy. R'n'B. Doczilla. Nparfitt. Fortdj33. Martin Rizzo. Rydrum2112. Iss246. 83 anonymous edits Scale (social sciences)  Source: http://en. OshinX. Angela. Chris-gore. Open2universe. Iulus Ascanius. Jcpowell. KF. Krsont.php?oldid=414124381  Contributors: Amb1013.org/w/index. Skoch3. Egil. Sugarcaddy. Hubbardaie. Klymkowsky. Dysprosia. Itschris. Jk2q3jrklse. Redthoreau. Useight. Eastlaw. Steve3849. John Vandenberg. HJ Mitchell. J. Firemanhk. Leszek Jańczuk. 41 anonymous edits Concept inventory  Source: http://en. Conversion script. Jeremykemp. Jusdafax. Wavelength. Vaughan. Justin545. Melcombe. Tim Q. Khan. Avocado.).Fred. Bogey97. Moyr. Winsteps. Nesbit. Lwdiener. 34 anonymous edits Standardized test  Source: http://en. Herostratus. Hongooi. Mattisse. Dovid. Basawala. Enoch the red. LookingGlass. Phillip Scavulli. James C. Kcallen78. Sam Hocevar.delanoy. Utopianfiat. Wholehearted. Taak. Holon. Rich Farmbrough. Antandrus. Nesbit. PhilipO. 7 anonymous edits Psychometrics  Source: http://en. Miami33139. Edward. Amead. Nolookingca. IvyIQTest100. DWaterson. Gioto. Harmon123. Richard Arthur Norton (1958. Dduttaroy. Trontonian. BullRangifer. JSRTRP. Nick Connolly. Nectarflowed. Maximus Rex. Jose Ramos. Doczilla. Wikilibrarian. I smits. Mebden. Zapp645. Paddles. Rjwilmsi. Bd134. Dale Arnett.org/w/index.c. BartlebytheScrivener. JoshAnish. Maryfbrowne. TinJack. ThreeOfCups. SchuminWeb. Thorseth. Lotze. Libarkin. Ebyabe. Jtneill. Coubure. Johndburger. Kweeket.org/w/index. Rigadoun. Tikiwont. WeijiBaikeBianji. Cycologist.wikipedia. MER-C. Rjwilmsi. Interiot.org/w/index. Imersion. Mark Foskey. Cmdrjameson. RichardF. Kate. Melcombe. Chris53516. Johnkarp.wikipedia. Hierophantasmagoria. Tonyfaull. Laminado. CBM. Itschris. Cswrye. Iulus Ascanius. Johnkarp. Winsteps. Jkingcastle. Den fjättrade ankan. Iss246. Alansohn. Bhabing. Michael Hardy. Wavelength.Wolfowitz. Xme. Klonimus. Mrdungx. Chetos. Appraiser. Cruise. Destynova. Michael Hardy. The Rogue Penguin. Johnrust. 9 anonymous edits . Dmitri Lytov. Sandstein.wikipedia. Dongseock. Nesbit. RDF-SAS. Hanshot1st. Wik. RichardF. Jfitzg. Aibdescalzo. Amead. Testingwhatmatters. Hughdbrown. NawlinWiki. Iss246. Denni. Btyner. FirstPrinciples. Skoban. JFMello. 17 anonymous edits Differential item functioning  Source: http://en. Jim62sch. Salsb. Mic. Qwfp. Wissons. Rhesusman. Novangelis. Zzuuzz. Zandperl. Hunt. Dspradau. Shadowjams. Sei Shonagon. Michele123. Twins Too!. TronTonian. Golgofrinchian.wikipedia. Erianna.wikipedia. Michael Hardy. Sanguinity. WhatamIdoing. Alexander VII.php?oldid=454922594  Contributors: 16@r. Ioannes Pragensis. Ppsis. Xanzzibar. Maurreen. Harej.php?oldid=373744066  Contributors: Crystallina. Andy Fugard. Bobblehead. EagleFan. EPM. Zigger.wikipedia. Giftlite. Geneffects. Practical321. Mangotree. D4g0thur. Tiddly Tom. AngelOfSadness. Ahoerstemeier.topher. Peachypoh. A1octopus. Trontonian. Iulus Ascanius.org/w/index. Cruise.wikipedia. Wilcoemons.org/w/index. Ceyockey. Robroot. Madchester. GB fan. Waveguy. Epbr123. Discospinster. Taxman. Physchim62. Cherokee AD. Kingmarsh.dL. Jorfer. ‫ 341 . Nellypledge. Oleg Alexandrov. Into The Fray. 5 anonymous edits Person-fit analysis  Source: http://en.ﻣﺎﻧﻲ‬anonymous edits Rasch model  Source: http://en. Quintote. 107 anonymous edits Classical test theory  Source: http://en. Brian Everlasting. DublinRanch.Article Sources and Contributors 43 Article Sources and Contributors Item response theory  Source: http://en. JaGa. Metropolitan90. Dhkaiser. Exigentsky. Michellefox. Before My Ken. Cmarieleahy. Kitb. Michael Hardy. LeonardoPisano. EagleFan. StAnselm. Qwfp. Tide rolls. Iridescent. Crystallina.php?oldid=453920832  Contributors: Aboluay. MinerVI. Borgx. Synthe. Vidiviniwiki. Skagedal. Sardanaphalus. I smits. The Thing That Should Not Be. Fæ. Scrapbook. DavidMorgan1950. Sophist234. Byron Vickers. Soap. WeijiBaikeBianji. Reinoutr. Mmjbhhal. Gjhernandezp. Michael Hardy. Iulus Ascanius. Ewqrs.php?oldid=422106874  Contributors: 35609178F. TeH nOmInAtOr. Seglea. Buskahegian. Xpelanek. Darklilac. Quester67. Guisbond. Amead. Bloomvlad. J.wikipedia.php?oldid=456543016  Contributors: Adel1827. Fryed-peach. Stevedavies2712. Rjwilmsi. Shanes. David Shay. TastyPoutine. Wotnow. Jmh649. Impelite. Erianna. Ybbor. Mack2. Angela. Paolo. Estel. Spencer. Taak. Mzabduk. Jeepday. Rdsmith4.wikipedia. Anonymi.php?oldid=454574196  Contributors: A bit iffy. Jsm145. Bob Wegotababyitsaboy. Voxp. Lakinekaki. 2over0. Chowbok. Fuhghettaboutit. Kehrbykid. DarkfireTaimatsu.wikipedia. Gaterion. Kiefer. H2otto. Iss246. Abasraz. Ricky81682. Grick. Scharfie. Wikiklrsc. Jiang. Yms. Klonimus. Dadaist6174. D4g0thur. Versageek. Enoch the red. Alluwanted. Stwalkerster. Wilcoemons. Mmbeach. KPH2293. Jcbutler. Wells. Trontonian. Thmazing. Karol Langner. Hede2000. Chris53516. Dirtyboy1968. F. Mydogategodshat. Chris Howard. Bhabing. Masih ghaziasgar. Alphabeat. Gadfium. Holon. Freechild. Melcombe. Psychpsych. Elvenscout742. John of Reading. Whicky1978. Chris Roy. E0steven. WikHead. Kennita728. Kingfish. Mandarax. Niteowlneils. EscapingLife. CMW275. Mlaffs. Bogey4. Melcombe. Amead. Cokoli. Fastfission. Taak. Tomi. Yaris678. RichardF. Hynas. Pak21. Jfitzg. Toytoy. Delldot. RoyBoy.k all tests and exams!. Dmerrill. AndresCorrada.org/w/index. php?title=File:3PL_IRF.org/w/index.php?title=File:ICCs_prog.org/w/index.wikipedia.PNG  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Image:PersItm.php?title=File:Matura2005_ILOSzczecin.php?title=File:TCC.gif  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: File:Matura2005 ILOSzczecin. Licenses and Contributors 44 Image Sources.org/w/index.JPG  Source: http://en.PNG  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Holon Image:ICCs prog.wikipedia.PNG  Source: http://en.org/w/index.wikipedia.org/w/index.png  Source: http://en.php?title=File:Hake_Plot.wikipedia.wikipedia.PNG  Source: http://en.org/w/index.php?title=File:RaschICC.gif  Source: http://en. Licenses and Contributors File:3PL IRF.jpg  Source: http://en.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Image:Hake Plot.0  Contributors: Skoch3 Image:TCC.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Original uploader was Marcin Otorowski at pl.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.php?title=File:Cito_Eindtoets_Basisonderwijs.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.wikipedia.wikipedia File:Cito Eindtoets Basisonderwijs.5  Contributors: - .JPG  Source: http://en.org/w/index.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.Image Sources.5  Contributors: Image:RaschICC.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.php?title=File:PersItm.org/w/index.wikipedia. License 45 License Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . Documents Similar To IRT wikibookSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextZBA-ENUCTT and IRT2005 - Item Response TheoryJob SecurityRonald K. Hambleton-Fundamentals of Item Response TheoryA Taxonomy of Skills in Reading and Interpreting FictiontmpA291.tmpChapter 14 Test AdministrationBYI II Tool ReviewIs Personality Related to Assessment Center Performance? - Journal of Business Psychologybsi18Planned Women Academic Programs and Socio-Economic Development of Communities0deec530bcc41d1b9a000000Design a personalized e-learning system based on item response theory and artificial neural network approach63IJEMS_V3(3)13Rossiter 2002The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing - A Commente 0331043049Lecture 8RANK01Presentation 1Acceptance of Learning Management SoftwareSUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATION INTO BUILDING PROJECTSCole McNulty 2011-LibreBarthel Index1477-7525-11-198Factors Influencing Individual Investor Behavior (the Case of the Karachi Stock Exchange)041101100016.pdf04 Cross Cultural AnxietyBest Books About StatisticsPredictive Analytics and Data Mining: Concepts and Practice with RapidMinerby Vijay Kotu and Bala DeshpandeThe Econometrics of Financial Marketsby John Y. Campbell, Andrew W. Lo, and A. Craig MacKinlayBeginning Statistics with Data Analysisby Frederick Mosteller, Stephen E. Fienberg, and Robert E.K. RourkePractical Statistical Process Controlby Colin HardwickR For Dummiesby Andrie de Vries and Joris MeysIntroducing Statistics: A Graphic Guideby Eileen Magnello and Borin Van LoonFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK