The external validity of scores based on the two-parameter logistic model: Some comparisons between IRT and CTT

Psicologica

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 237-257

  Ferrando, Pere Joan ^a   Chico, Eliseo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35448963910     PISSN: 02112159     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bechger, T.M., Maris, G., Verstralen, H.H.F.M. & Béguin, A.A. (2003). Using classical test theory in combination with item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 319-334.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In P.M. Lord, & M.R. Novick. Statistical theories of mental tests scores (pp. 397-472). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
3. Carrigan, P.M. (1960). Extraversion-introversion as a dimension of personality: A reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 329-360.
4. Cooke, D.J. (1995). Psychopathic disturbances in the Scottish prison population: The cross-cultural generalisability of the Hare psychopathy checklist. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2, 101-108.
5. Crowne, O.P. & Marlowe, D. (1964). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
6. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1963). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: University of London Press.
7. Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J., & Barrett, P.T. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.
8. Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 357-381.
9. Ferrando, P.J. (1999). Likert scaling using continuous, censored and graded response models: Effects on criterion-related validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 161-175.
10. Ferrando, P.J. (2004). Improving the validity of personality scores with item factor analysis. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5, 197-210.
11. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385-400.
12. Hambleton, R.K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer.
13. Hancock, G.R. (1997). Correlation/validity coefficients disattenuated for score reliability: A structural equation modeling approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 598-606.
14. Hare, R.D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.
15. Hare, R.D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
16. Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL8: User's Reference Guide [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
17. Lawson, S. (1991). One parameter latent trait measurement: Do the results justify the effort? In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in educational research: Substantive findings, methodological developments (Vol. 1, pp 159-168). Greenwhich, CT: JAI.
18. Lord, P.M. (1952). A theory of test scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement. No. 7.
19. Lord, P.M. (1953). The relation of test score to the trait underlying the test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13, 517-548.
20. Lord, P.M. (1983). Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, of their variance, and of their parallel-forms reliability. Psychometrika, 48, 233-245.
21. Lord, P.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22. Lumsden, J. (1976). Test theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 251-280.
23. MacDonald, P. & Pauonen, S.V. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 921-943.
24. McBride, J. R. & Martin, J.T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.) New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp 224-236). New York: Academic Press.
25. Mellenbergh, G.J. (1996). Measurement precision in test score and item response models. Psychological Methods, 1, 293-299.
26. Messick, S. (1993). Validity. In R.L. Linn, (Ed.) Educational measurement third edition (pp. 13-103). Phoenix: Oryx Press.
27. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Reise, S.P. (1999). Personality measurement issues viewed through the eyes of IRT. In S.E. Embretson & S.L. Hershberger (Eds). The new rules of measurement (pp. 219-241). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
29. Reise, S.P. & Waller, N.G. (1990). Fitting the two-parameter model to personality data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 45-58.
30. Reynolds, C.R. & Richmond, B.O. (1978). What I think and fell: A revised measure of children's manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 271-280.
31. Rocklin, T. & Revelle, W. (1981). The measurement of extraversion: A comparison of the Eysenck personality inventory and the Eysenck personality questionnaire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 279-289.
32. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement. No. 34.
33. Samejima, F. (1977). A method of estimating item characteristic functions using the maximum likelihood estimate of ability. Psychometrika, 42, 163-191.
34. Samejima, F. (1994). Estimation of reliability coefficients using the test information function and its modifications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 229-244.
35. Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183-198.
36. 23. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 579-581.
37. Young, J.W. (1995). A comparison of two adjustment methods for improving the prediction of law school grades. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 558-571.
38. Zimowski, M.F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R.J. & Bock, R.D. (2002). BILOG MG II: Multiple group item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.