Assessing the performance of classical test theory item discrimination estimators in Monte Carlo simulations (original) (raw)
References
Alemoni, L. M., & Spencer, R. E. (1969). A comparison of biserial discrimination, point-biserial discrimination, and difficulty indices in item analysis data. Educational and Psychological Measurement,29, 353–358. Article Google Scholar
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Google Scholar
Bechger, T. M., Maris, G., Verstralen, H. H., & Béguin, A. A. (2003). Using classical test theory in combination with item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement,27(5), 319–334. Article Google Scholar
Berk, R. A., & Griesemer, H. A. (1976). ITEMAN: An item analysis program for tests, questionnaires, and scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,36(1), 189–191. Article Google Scholar
Beuchert, A., & Mendoza, J. L. (1979). A Monte Carlo comparison of ten item discrimination indices. Journal of Educational Measurement,16(2), 109–117. Article Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1972). A note on comparing r biserial and r point-biserial. Educational and Psychological Measurement,32, 771–775. Article Google Scholar
Brennan, R. L. (1972). A generalized U-L item discrimination index. Educational and Psychological Measurement,32, 289–303. Article Google Scholar
Brodgen, H. E. (1949). A new coefficient: Application to biserial correlation and to estimation of selective efficiency. Psychometrika,14, 169–182. Article Google Scholar
Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
Davis, F. B. (1951). Item selection techniques. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement (pp. 266–328). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Google Scholar
Dawber, T., Rogers, W. T., & Carbonaro, M. (2009). Robustness of Lord’s formulas for item difficulty and discrimination conversions between classical and item response theory models. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,55(4), 512–533. Google Scholar
de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment,8(4), 341–349. Article Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
Engelhart, M. D. (1965). A comparison of several item discrimination indices. Journal of Educational Measurement,2(1), 69–76. Article Google Scholar
Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement,58(3), 357–381. Article Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). An NCME instructional module on comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,12(3), 38–47. Article Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Harwell, M., Stone, C. A., Hsu, T. C., & Kirisci, L. (1996). Monte Carlo studies in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement,20(2), 101–125. Article Google Scholar
Ivens, S. H. (1971). Non-parametric item evaluation index. Educational and Psychological Measurement,31, 843–849. Article Google Scholar
Kamata, A., & Bauer, D. J. (2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and item response theory models. Structural Equation Modeling,15, 136–153. Article Google Scholar
Kim, S. H. (1997). BILOG 3 for windows: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models. Applied Psychological Measurement,21(4), 371–376. Article Google Scholar
Kohli, N., Koran, J., & Henn, L. (2014). Relationships among classical test theory and item response theory frameworks via factor analytic models. Educational and Psychological Measurement,75(3), 389–405. Article Google Scholar
Liu, F. (2008). Comparison of several popular discrimination indices based on different criteria and their application in item analysis (Unpublished master thesis). Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Lord, F., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
MacDonald, P., & Paunonen, 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(6), 921–943. Article Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
Oosterhof, A. C. (1976). Similarity of various item discrimination indices. Journal of Educational Measurement,13(2), 145–150. Article Google Scholar
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2015). On the relationship between classical test theory and item response theory: from one to the other and back. Educational and Psychological Measurement,76(2), 325–338. Article Google Scholar
Rizzo, M. L. (2008). Statistical computing with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Google Scholar
Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika,52(3), 393–408. Article Google Scholar
Traub, R. E. (1997). Classical test theory in historical perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,16(4), 8–14. Article Google Scholar