File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Traditional scores versus IRT estimates on forced-choice tests based on a dominance model

TitleTraditional scores versus IRT estimates on forced-choice tests based on a dominance model
Authors
KeywordsDominance model
Issue Date2016
Citation
Psicothema, 2016, v. 28, n. 1, p. 76-82 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2016 Psicothema.Background: Forced-choice tests (FCTs) were proposed to minimize response biases associated with Likert format items. It remains unclear whether scores based on traditional methods for scoring FCTs are appropriate for between-subjects comparisons. Recently, Hontangas et al. (2015) explored the extent to which traditional scoring of FCTs relates to the true scores and IRT estimates. The authors found certain conditions under which traditional scores (TS) can be used with FCTs when the underlying IRT model was an unfolding model. In this study, we examine to what extent the results are preserved when the underlying process becomes a dominance model. Method: The independent variables analyzed in a simulation study are: forced-choice format, number of blocks, discrimination of items, polarity of items, variability of intra-block difficulty, range of difficulty, and correlation between dimensions. Results: A similar pattern of results was observed for both models; however, correlations between TS and true thetas are higher and the differences between TS and IRT estimates are less discrepant when a dominance model involved. Conclusions: A dominance model produces a linear relationship between TS and true scores, and the subjects with extreme thetas are better measured.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228239
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.245
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.698

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHontangas, Pedro M.-
dc.contributor.authorLeenen, Iwin-
dc.contributor.authorde la Torre, Jimmy-
dc.contributor.authorPonsoda, Vicente-
dc.contributor.authorMorillo, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorAbad, Francisco J.-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-01T06:45:32Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-01T06:45:32Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationPsicothema, 2016, v. 28, n. 1, p. 76-82-
dc.identifier.issn0214-9915-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228239-
dc.description.abstract© 2016 Psicothema.Background: Forced-choice tests (FCTs) were proposed to minimize response biases associated with Likert format items. It remains unclear whether scores based on traditional methods for scoring FCTs are appropriate for between-subjects comparisons. Recently, Hontangas et al. (2015) explored the extent to which traditional scoring of FCTs relates to the true scores and IRT estimates. The authors found certain conditions under which traditional scores (TS) can be used with FCTs when the underlying IRT model was an unfolding model. In this study, we examine to what extent the results are preserved when the underlying process becomes a dominance model. Method: The independent variables analyzed in a simulation study are: forced-choice format, number of blocks, discrimination of items, polarity of items, variability of intra-block difficulty, range of difficulty, and correlation between dimensions. Results: A similar pattern of results was observed for both models; however, correlations between TS and true thetas are higher and the differences between TS and IRT estimates are less discrepant when a dominance model involved. Conclusions: A dominance model produces a linear relationship between TS and true scores, and the subjects with extreme thetas are better measured.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofPsicothema-
dc.subjectDominance model-
dc.titleTraditional scores versus IRT estimates on forced-choice tests based on a dominance model-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.7334/psicothema2015.204-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84955312850-
dc.identifier.volume28-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage76-
dc.identifier.epage82-
dc.identifier.eissn1886-144X-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats