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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26155754)

  • 1. Linking Item Response Model Parameters.
    van der Linden WJ; Barrett MD
    Psychometrika; 2016 Sep; 81(3):650-73. PubMed ID: 26155754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Rasch fit statistics as a test of the invariance of item parameter estimates.
    Smith RM; Suh KK
    J Appl Meas; 2003; 4(2):153-63. PubMed ID: 12748407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Expected linking error resulting from item parameter drift among the common Items on Rasch calibrated tests.
    Miller GE; Gesn PR; Rotou J
    J Appl Meas; 2005; 6(1):48-56. PubMed ID: 15701943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Item Response Theory Observed-Score Kernel Equating.
    Andersson B; Wiberg M
    Psychometrika; 2017 Mar; 82(1):48-66. PubMed ID: 27743280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Calibrating the Medical Council of Canada's Qualifying Examination Part I using an integrated item response theory framework: a comparison of models and designs.
    De Champlain AF; Boulais AP; Dallas A
    J Educ Eval Health Prof; 2016; 13():6. PubMed ID: 26883811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pre-equating: a simulation study based on a large scale assessment model.
    Taherbhai HM; Young MJ
    J Appl Meas; 2004; 5(3):301-18. PubMed ID: 15243175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Expanding an existing multiple choice test with a mixed format test: simulation study on sample size and item recovery in concurrent calibration.
    Paek I; Young MJ
    J Appl Meas; 2006; 7(4):394-406. PubMed ID: 17068379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Equating designs and procedures used in Rasch scaling.
    Skaggs G; Wolfe EW
    J Appl Meas; 2010; 11(2):182-95. PubMed ID: 20693702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. On the Identifiability of 3- and 4-Parameter Item Response Theory Models From the Perspective of Knowledge Space Theory.
    Noventa S; Ye S; Kelava A; Spoto A
    Psychometrika; 2024 Jun; 89(2):486-516. PubMed ID: 38349597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluating Anchor-Item Designs for Concurrent Calibration With the GGUM.
    Joo SH; Lee P; Stark S
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2017 Mar; 41(2):83-96. PubMed ID: 29881079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing concurrent versus fixed parameter equating with common items: using the dichotomous and partial credit models in a mixed-item format test.
    Taherbhai HM; Seo DY
    J Appl Meas; 2007; 8(1):84-96. PubMed ID: 17215567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On the Unidentifiability of the Fixed-Effects 3PL Model.
    San Martín E; González J; Tuerlinckx F
    Psychometrika; 2015 Jun; 80(2):450-67. PubMed ID: 24482314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Test equating in the presence of DIF items.
    Chu KL; Kamata A
    J Appl Meas; 2005; 6(3):342-54. PubMed ID: 15942075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Equating and item banking with the Rasch model.
    Wolfe EW
    J Appl Meas; 2000; 1(4):409-34. PubMed ID: 12077465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How Does Calibration Timing and Seasonality Affect Item Parameter Estimates?
    Wyse AE; Babcock B
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2016 Jun; 76(3):508-527. PubMed ID: 29795876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Comparison of the Separate and Concurrent Calibration Methods for the Full-Information Bifactor model.
    Kim KY
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 43(7):512-526. PubMed ID: 31534287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Note on the Identifiability of Fixed-Effect 3PL Models.
    Wu H
    Psychometrika; 2016 Dec; 81(4):1093-1097. PubMed ID: 27646346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimal Item Calibration for Computerized Achievement Tests.
    Ul Hassan M; Miller F
    Psychometrika; 2019 Dec; 84(4):1101-1128. PubMed ID: 31183669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluating Different Equating Setups in the Continuous Item Pool Calibration for Computerized Adaptive Testing.
    Born S; Fink A; Spoden C; Frey A
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():1277. PubMed ID: 31244717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multiple Equating of Separate IRT Calibrations.
    Battauz M
    Psychometrika; 2016 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 27699559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.