These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22733226)

  • 1. Fitting a Thurstonian IRT model to forced-choice data using Mplus.
    Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Behav Res Methods; 2012 Dec; 44(4):1135-47. PubMed ID: 22733226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How IRT can solve problems of ipsative data in forced-choice questionnaires.
    Brown A; Maydeu-Olivares A
    Psychol Methods; 2013 Mar; 18(1):36-52. PubMed ID: 23148475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Item Response Models for Forced-Choice Questionnaires: A Common Framework.
    Brown A
    Psychometrika; 2016 Mar; 81(1):135-60. PubMed ID: 25663304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Investigating the Normativity of Trait Estimates from Multidimensional Forced-Choice Data.
    Frick S; Brown A; Wetzel E
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 34464217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Forced-Choice Assessment of Work-Related Maladaptive Personality Traits: Preliminary Evidence From an Application of Thurstonian Item Response Modeling.
    Guenole N; Brown AA; Cooper AJ
    Assessment; 2018 Jun; 25(4):513-526. PubMed ID: 27056730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On the Statistical and Practical Limitations of Thurstonian IRT Models.
    Bürkner PC; Schulte N; Holling H
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 79(5):827-854. PubMed ID: 31488915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Can High-Dimensional Questionnaires Resolve the Ipsativity Issue of Forced-Choice Response Formats?
    Schulte N; Holling H; Bürkner PC
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2021 Apr; 81(2):262-289. PubMed ID: 37929263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the Validity of Forced Choice Scores Derived From the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model.
    Walton KE; Cherkasova L; Roberts RD
    Assessment; 2020 Jun; 27(4):706-718. PubMed ID: 31007043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Integration of the Forced-Choice Questionnaire and the Likert Scale: A Simulation Study.
    Xiao Y; Liu H; Li H
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():806. PubMed ID: 28572781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Traditional scores versus IRT estimates on forced-choice tests based on a dominance model.
    Hontangas PM; Leenen I; de la Torre J; Ponsoda V; Morillo D; Abad FJ
    Psicothema; 2016; 28(1):76-82. PubMed ID: 26820428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Contributions to Constructing Forced-Choice Questionnaires Using the Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Sun L; Qin Z; Wang S; Tian X; Luo F
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2024; 59(2):229-250. PubMed ID: 37776890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A Lognormal Ipsative Model for Multidimensional Compositional Items.
    Chen CW; Wang WC; Mok MMC; Scherer R
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():573252. PubMed ID: 34712161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Linear Factor Analytic Thurstonian Forced-Choice Models: Current Status and Issues.
    Jansen MT; Schulze R
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Aug; 84(4):660-690. PubMed ID: 39055095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of Single-Response Format and Forced-Choice Format Instruments Using Thurstonian Item Response Theory.
    Dueber DM; Love AMA; Toland MD; Turner TA
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Feb; 79(1):108-128. PubMed ID: 30636784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format Character Measure: Testing the Thurstonian IRT Approach.
    Ng V; Lee P; Ho MR; Kuykendall L; Stark S; Tay L
    J Pers Assess; 2021; 103(2):224-237. PubMed ID: 32208939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Bayesian Random Block Item Response Theory Model for Forced-Choice Formats.
    Lee H; Smith WZ
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 80(3):578-603. PubMed ID: 32425220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Dominance Variant Under the Multi-Unidimensional Pairwise-Preference Framework: Model Formulation and Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation.
    Morillo D; Leenen I; Abad FJ; Hontangas P; de la Torre J; Ponsoda V
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2016 Oct; 40(7):500-516. PubMed ID: 29881066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests.
    Hontangas PM; de la Torre J; Ponsoda V; Leenen I; Morillo D; Abad FJ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2015 Nov; 39(8):598-612. PubMed ID: 29881030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Joint modeling of the two-alternative multidimensional forced-choice personality measurement and its response time by a Thurstonian D-diffusion item response model.
    Bunji K; Okada K
    Behav Res Methods; 2020 Jun; 52(3):1091-1107. PubMed ID: 32394181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Fit Indices for Measurement Invariance Tests in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Lee H; Smith WZ
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 44(4):282-295. PubMed ID: 32536730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.