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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29560735)

  • 21. The Structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory With Binary and Rating Scale Items.
    Boldero JM; Bell RC; Davies RC
    J Pers Assess; 2015; 97(6):626-37. PubMed ID: 25970300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Comparison of parameter estimation approaches for multi-unidimensional pairwise preference tests.
    Tu N; Joo S; Lee P; Stark S
    Behav Res Methods; 2023 Sep; 55(6):2764-2786. PubMed ID: 35931936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. What do self-efficacy items measure? Examining the discriminant content validity of self-efficacy items.
    Burrell AMG; Allan JL; Williams DM; Johnston M
    Br J Health Psychol; 2018 Sep; 23(3):597-611. PubMed ID: 29520897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Cancer patient and staff perceptions of caring and clinical care in free versus forced choice response formats.
    Widmark-Petersson V; von Essen L; Sjödén PO
    Scand J Caring Sci; 1998; 12(4):238-45. PubMed ID: 10067650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Linking Methods for Multidimensional Forced Choice Tests Using the Multi-Unidimensional Pairwise Preference Model.
    Tu N; Kumar LS; Joo S; Stark S
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2024 May; 48(3):104-124. PubMed ID: 38585303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Interval estimation procedures for true scores of a test composed of polytomous items: An application of the multinomial error model.
    Kim KY; Park S; Lee WC
    Psychol Methods; 2021 Jun; 26(3):343-356. PubMed ID: 32852982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Estimating and Using Block Information in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
    Frick S
    Psychometrika; 2023 Dec; 88(4):1556-1589. PubMed ID: 37640828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Measuring Motivation for Cognitive Effort as State.
    Blaise M; Marksteiner T; Krispenz A; Bertrams A
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():785094. PubMed ID: 34956008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Development of a scale to assess motivation for competitive employment among persons with severe mental illness.
    Sasaki N; Sato S; Yamaguchi S; Shimodaira M; Kawakami N
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0204809. PubMed ID: 30278081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Psychometric characteristics and response times for content-parallel extended-matching and one-best-answer items in relation to number of options.
    Swanson DB; Holtzman KZ; Allbee K; Clauser BE
    Acad Med; 2006 Oct; 81(10 Suppl):S52-5. PubMed ID: 17001136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Measuring Response Styles Across the Big Five: A Multiscale Extension of an Approach Using Multinomial Processing Trees.
    Khorramdel L; von Davier M
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2014; 49(2):161-77. PubMed ID: 26741175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A genetic algorithm for optimal assembly of pairwise forced-choice questionnaires.
    Kreitchmann RS; Abad FJ; Sorrel MA
    Behav Res Methods; 2022 Jun; 54(3):1476-1492. PubMed ID: 34505277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations.
    Ubel PA; Loewenstein G; Scanlon D; Kamlet M
    Health Policy; 1998 Jan; 43(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 10178799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Influence of Context on Item Parameters in Forced-Choice Personality Assessments.
    Lin Y; Brown A
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2017 Jun; 77(3):389-414. PubMed ID: 29795919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. To bin or not to bin? A comparison of symptom frequency response formats in the assessment of health-related quality of life.
    Magnus BE; Kirkman M; Dutta T; Kaur M; Mannchen N
    Qual Life Res; 2019 Mar; 28(3):841-853. PubMed ID: 30484119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.