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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26973568)

  • 1. Classification Accuracy of Mixed Format Tests: A Bi-Factor Item Response Theory Approach.
    Wang W; Drasgow F; Liu L
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():270. PubMed ID: 26973568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Sequential Bayesian Ability Estimation Applied to Mixed-Format Item Tests.
    Xiong J; Cohen AS; Xiong XM
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2023 Sep; 47(5-6):402-419. PubMed ID: 37810543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Integrating a Statistical Topic Model and a Diagnostic Classification Model for Analyzing Items in a Mixed Format Assessment.
    Choi HJ; Kim S; Cohen AS; Templin J; Copur-Gencturk Y
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():579199. PubMed ID: 33633622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Methods for Evaluating Composite Reliability, Classification Consistency, and Classification Accuracy for Mixed-Format Licensure Tests.
    Moses T; Kim S
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2015 Jun; 39(4):314-329. PubMed ID: 29881011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Item Response Theory Models for Wording Effects in Mixed-Format Scales.
    Wang WC; Chen HF; Jin KY
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2015 Feb; 75(1):157-178. PubMed ID: 29795817
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. A Psychometric Model for Discrete-Option Multiple-Choice Items.
    Bolt DM; Kim N; Wollack J; Pan Y; Eckerly C; Sowles J
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jan; 44(1):33-48. PubMed ID: 31853157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Varying the item format improved the range of measurement in patient-reported outcome measures assessing physical function.
    Liegl G; Gandek B; Fischer HF; Bjorner JB; Ware JE; Rose M; Fries JF; Nolte S
    Arthritis Res Ther; 2017 Mar; 19(1):66. PubMed ID: 28320462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Exploring the item sets of the Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL) measures using factor analysis.
    Keetharuth AD; Bjorner JB; Barkham M; Browne J; Croudace T; Brazier J
    Qual Life Res; 2019 Apr; 28(4):1005-1015. PubMed ID: 30578454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Joint Modeling of Response Accuracy and Time in Between-Item Multidimensional Tests Based on Bi-Factor Model.
    Guo X; Jiao Y; Huang Z; Liu T
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():763959. PubMed ID: 35478766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Impact of Item Feature and Response Preference in a Mixed-Format Design.
    Chen HF; Jin KY
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2022; 57(2-3):208-222. PubMed ID: 33001710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Customizing Bayesian multivariate generalizability theory to mixed-format tests.
    Jiang Z; Ouyang J; Shi D; Shi D; Zhang J; Xu L; Cai F
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 39073755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of response format on cognitive reflection: Validating a two- and four-option multiple choice question version of the Cognitive Reflection Test.
    Sirota M; Juanchich M
    Behav Res Methods; 2018 Dec; 50(6):2511-2522. PubMed ID: 29589333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fixed or mixed: a comparison of three, four and mixed-option multiple-choice tests in a Fetal Surveillance Education Program.
    Zoanetti N; Beaves M; Griffin P; Wallace EM
    BMC Med Educ; 2013 Mar; 13():35. PubMed ID: 23453056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cuing effect of "all of the above" on the reliability and validity of multiple-choice test items.
    Harasym PH; Leong EJ; Violato C; Brant R; Lorscheider FL
    Eval Health Prof; 1998 Mar; 21(1):120-33. PubMed ID: 10183336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Confirmatory Multidimensional IRT Unfolding Models for Graded-Response Items.
    Wang WC; Wu SL
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2016 Jan; 40(1):56-72. PubMed ID: 29881036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Disparity between General Symptom Relief and Remission Criteria in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): A Post-treatment Bifactor Item Response Theory Model.
    Anderson AE; Reise SP; Marder SR; Mansolf M; Han C; Bilder RM
    Innov Clin Neurosci; 2017 Dec; 14(11-12):41-53. PubMed ID: 29410936
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Test Item Taxonomy Based on Functional Criteria.
    Moreno R; Martínez RJ; Muñiz J
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():1175. PubMed ID: 30042714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.