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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28557481)

  • 1. A within-person examination of the ideal-point response process.
    LaPalme M; Tay L; Wang W
    Psychol Assess; 2018 May; 30(5):567-581. PubMed ID: 28557481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Examining assumptions about item responding in personality assessment: should ideal point methods be considered for scale development and scoring?
    Stark S; Chernyshenko OS; Drasgow F; Williams BA
    J Appl Psychol; 2006 Jan; 91(1):25-39. PubMed ID: 16435936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Item response theory scoring and the detection of curvilinear relationships.
    Carter NT; Dalal DK; Guan L; LoPilato AC; Withrow SA
    Psychol Methods; 2017 Mar; 22(1):191-203. PubMed ID: 27819433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Examining the Process of Responding to Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values Items: Should Ideal Point Scoring Methods Be Considered?
    Ling Y; Zhang M; Locke KD; Li G; Li Z
    J Pers Assess; 2016; 98(3):310-8. PubMed ID: 26421444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Matches Made With Information: Fitting Measurement Models to Adult Attachment Data.
    Sun T; Fraley RC; Drasgow F
    Assessment; 2021 Oct; 28(7):1828-1847. PubMed ID: 33185133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Constructing personality scales under the assumptions of an ideal point response process: toward increasing the flexibility of personality measures.
    Chernyshenko OS; Stark S; Drasgow F; Roberts BW
    Psychol Assess; 2007 Mar; 19(1):88-106. PubMed ID: 17371125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fitting measurement models to vocational interest data: are dominance models ideal?
    Tay L; Drasgow F; Rounds J; Williams BA
    J Appl Psychol; 2009 Sep; 94(5):1287-304. PubMed ID: 19702371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing meaningful within-person variability in Likert-scale rated personality descriptions: An IRT tree approach.
    Lang JWB; Lievens F; De Fruyt F; Zettler I; Tackett JL
    Psychol Assess; 2019 Apr; 31(4):474-487. PubMed ID: 30855158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of personality item writing on psychometric properties of ideal-point and likert scales.
    Huang J; Mead AD
    Psychol Assess; 2014 Dec; 26(4):1162-72. PubMed ID: 24999752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An investigation of emotional intelligence measures using item response theory.
    Cho S; Drasgow F; Cao M
    Psychol Assess; 2015 Dec; 27(4):1241-52. PubMed ID: 25961137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of response style on self-reported Conscientiousness across 20 countries.
    Mõttus R; Allik J; Realo A; Rossier J; Zecca G; Ah-Kion J; Amoussou-Yéyé D; Bäckström M; Barkauskiene R; Barry O; Bhowon U; Björklund F; Bochaver A; Bochaver K; de Bruin G; Cabrera HF; Chen SX; Church AT; Cissé DD; Dahourou D; Feng X; Guan Y; Hwang HS; Idris F; Katigbak MS; Kuppens P; Kwiatkowska A; Laurinavicius A; Mastor KA; Matsumoto D; Riemann R; Schug J; Simpson B; Tseung-Wong CN; Johnson W
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2012 Nov; 38(11):1423-36. PubMed ID: 22745332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The person versus the situation--a pseudo issue? A response to Alker.
    Endler NS
    J Pers; 1973 Jun; 41(2):287-303. PubMed ID: 4706613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Item response theory applications in personality disorder research.
    Balsis S; Ruchensky JR; Busch AJ
    Personal Disord; 2017 Oct; 8(4):298-308. PubMed ID: 29022734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using item response theory to investigate the structure of anticipated affect: do self-reports about future affective reactions conform to typical or maximal models?
    Zampetakis LA; Lerakis M; Kafetsios K; Moustakis V
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1438. PubMed ID: 26441806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: on the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences.
    van der Maas HLJ; Molenaar D; Maris G; Kievit RA; Borsboom D
    Psychol Rev; 2011 Apr; 118(2):339-356. PubMed ID: 21401290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and psychoticism: distinctive influences of three personality dimensions in adolescence.
    Heaven PC; Ciarrochi J; Leeson P; Barkus E
    Br J Psychol; 2013 Nov; 104(4):481-94. PubMed ID: 24094279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An Item-Level Analysis for Detecting Faking on Personality Tests: Appropriateness of Ideal Point Item Response Theory Models.
    Liu J; Zhang J
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():3090. PubMed ID: 32038431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dissociating Indifferent, Directional, and Extreme Responding in Personality Data: Applying the Three-Process Model to Self- and Observer Reports.
    Zettler I; Lang JW; Hülsheger UR; Hilbig BE
    J Pers; 2016 Aug; 84(4):461-72. PubMed ID: 25765765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The value of item response theory in clinical assessment: a review.
    Thomas ML
    Assessment; 2011 Sep; 18(3):291-307. PubMed ID: 20644081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An examination of the structure of self-report psychopathy measures and their relations with general traits and externalizing behaviors.
    Seibert LA; Miller JD; Few LR; Zeichner A; Lynam DR
    Personal Disord; 2011 Jul; 2(3):193-208. PubMed ID: 22448766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.