Using IRT Trait Estimates Versus Summated Scores in Predicting Outcomes

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 453-468

  Xu, Ting ^a   Stone, Clement A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

CTT; IRT; predictive validity; summated scores

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864800843     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164411419846     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Andrich D.A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories.Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
2. Carifio J.,Perla R. J.Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes.Journal of Social Sciences. 2007;3 (3): 106-116.
3. Dodd B. G.,Koch W. R.,De Ayala R. J. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 1989San Francisco, CA; 1989.
4. Dowling G. R.,Midgley D. F.Using rank values as an interval scale.Psychology & Marketing. 1991;8:37-41.
5. Fan X.Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1998;58:357-381.
6. Ferrando P. J.Likert scaling using continuous, censored and graded response models: Effects on criterion-related validity.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1999;23:161-175.
7. Ferrando P. J.,Chico E.The external validity of scores based on the two-parameter logistic model: Some comparisons between IRT and CTT.Psicológica. 2007;28:237-257.
8. Glass G. V.,Peckman P. D.,Sanders J. R.Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying analyses of variance and covariance.Review of Educational Research. 1972;42:237-288.
9. Harwell M. R.,Gatti G. G.Rescaling ordinal data to interval data in educational research.Review of Educational Research. 2001;71:105-131.
10. Lawson S.Advances in educational research: Substantive findings, methodological developments. Thompson B., ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1991:159-168.
11. Li H.,Wainer H.Toward a coherent view of reliability in test theory. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1998:.
12. MacDonald P.,Pauonen S. V.A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2002;62:921-943.
13. McBride J. R.,Martin J. T.New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing. Weiss D. J., ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1983:224-236.
14. Muraki E.A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1992;16:159-176.
15. Muraki E.,Bock R. D.PARSCALE 3: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 1997:.
16. Ndalichako J. L.,Rogers W. T.Comparison of finite state score theory, classical test theory, and item response theory in scoring multiple-choice items.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1997;57:580-589.
17. Raykov T.Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1997;21:173-184.
18. Russell C. J.,Bobko P.Moderated regression analyses and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77:336-342.
19. Samejima F.Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society; 1969:.
20. Thissen D.,Nelson L.,Rosa K.,McLeod L. D.Test scoring. Thissen D.Wainer H., ed. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:141-184.
21. Thissen D.,Orlando M.Test scoring. Thissen D.Wainer H., ed. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:73-137.
22. Young J. W.A comparison of two adjustment methods for improving the prediction of law school grades.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1995;55:558-571.