163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23049139)
1. Characterizing Sources of Uncertainty in IRT Scale Scores.
Yang JS; Hansen M; Cai L
Educ Psychol Meas; 2012 Apr; 72(2):264-290. PubMed ID: 23049139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Characterizing Sampling Variability for Item Response Theory Scale Scores in a Fixed-Parameter Calibrated Projection Design.
Xu S; Liu Y
Appl Psychol Meas; 2022 Sep; 46(6):509-528. PubMed ID: 35991824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Large Sample Confidence Intervals for Item Response Theory Reliability Coefficients.
Andersson B; Xin T
Educ Psychol Meas; 2018 Feb; 78(1):32-45. PubMed ID: 29795945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Simple imputation methods versus direct likelihood analysis for missing item scores in multilevel educational data.
Kadengye DT; Cools W; Ceulemans E; Van den Noortgate W
Behav Res Methods; 2012 Jun; 44(2):516-31. PubMed ID: 22002637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The estimation of premorbid intelligence levels in French speakers].
Mackinnon A; Mulligan R
Encephale; 2005; 31(1 Pt 1):31-43. PubMed ID: 15971638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing five depression measures in depressed Chinese patients using item response theory: an examination of item properties, measurement precision and score comparability.
Zhao Y; Chan W; Lo BC
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2017 Apr; 15(1):60. PubMed ID: 28372559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sources of Error in IRT Trait Estimation.
Feuerstahler LM
Appl Psychol Meas; 2018 Jul; 42(5):359-375. PubMed ID: 30034054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Robustness of the performance of the optimized hierarchical two-parameter logistic IRT model for small-sample item calibration.
König C; Spoden C; Frey A
Behav Res Methods; 2023 Dec; 55(8):3965-3983. PubMed ID: 36333627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS(®)) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test.
Deng N; Anatchkova MD; Waring ME; Han KT; Ware JE
Qual Life Res; 2015 Aug; 24(8):1809-22. PubMed ID: 25601166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A random item effects generalized partial credit model with a multiple imputation-based scoring procedure.
Huang S; Chung S; Cai L
Qual Life Res; 2024 Mar; 33(3):637-651. PubMed ID: 37950818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Conditional Precision of Measurement for Test Scores: Are Conditional Standard Errors Sufficient?
Nicewander WA
Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Feb; 79(1):5-18. PubMed ID: 30636779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An Optimized Bayesian Hierarchical Two-Parameter Logistic Model for Small-Sample Item Calibration.
König C; Spoden C; Frey A
Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 44(4):311-326. PubMed ID: 32536732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Incorporating calibration errors in oral reading fluency scoring.
Qiao X; Kamata A; Potgieter C
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38726687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales.
Bjorner JB; Kosinski M; Ware JE
Qual Life Res; 2003 Dec; 12(8):981-1002. PubMed ID: 14651417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of IRT item misfit on score estimates and severity classifications: an examination of PROMIS depression and pain interference item banks.
Zhao Y
Qual Life Res; 2017 Mar; 26(3):555-564. PubMed ID: 27909853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On the Choice of the Item Response Model for Scaling PISA Data: Model Selection Based on Information Criteria and Quantifying Model Uncertainty.
Robitzsch A
Entropy (Basel); 2022 May; 24(6):. PubMed ID: 35741481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On the Treatment of Missing Item Responses in Educational Large-Scale Assessment Data: An Illustrative Simulation Study and a Case Study Using PISA 2018 Mathematics Data.
Robitzsch A
Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ; 2021 Dec; 11(4):1653-1687. PubMed ID: 34940395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Practical Consequences of Item Response Theory Model Misfit in the Context of Test Equating with Mixed-Format Test Data.
Zhao Y; Hambleton RK
Front Psychol; 2017; 8():484. PubMed ID: 28421011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Scoring Depression on a Common Metric: A Comparison of EAP Estimation, Plausible Value Imputation, and Full Bayesian IRT Modeling.
Fischer HF; Rose M
Multivariate Behav Res; 2019; 54(1):85-99. PubMed ID: 30235003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Restricted Recalibration of Item Response Theory Models.
Liu Y; Yang JS; Maydeu-Olivares A
Psychometrika; 2019 Jun; 84(2):529-553. PubMed ID: 30895437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
