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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30350024)

  • 21. Minimum Distance Estimation of Multidimensional Diffusion-Based Item Response Theory Models.
    Ranger J; Kuhn JT; Szardenings C
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(6):941-957. PubMed ID: 32019358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples.
    Petrillo J; Cano SJ; McLeod LD; Coon CD
    Value Health; 2015 Jan; 18(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 25595231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Item-Weighted Likelihood Method for Measuring Growth in Longitudinal Study With Tests Composed of Both Dichotomous and Polytomous Items.
    Xue X; Lu J; Zhang J
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():580015. PubMed ID: 34385940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Limited information estimation of the diffusion-based item response theory model for responses and response times.
    Ranger J; Kuhn JT; Szardenings C
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2016 May; 69(2):122-38. PubMed ID: 26853083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Information matrix estimation procedures for cognitive diagnostic models.
    Liu Y; Xin T; Andersson B; Tian W
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 Feb; 72(1):18-37. PubMed ID: 29508383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Estimating Optimal Weights for Compound Scores: A Multidimensional IRT Approach.
    van Lier HG; Siemons L; van der Laar MAFJ; Glas CAW
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(6):914-924. PubMed ID: 30463444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Joint Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Diagnostic Classification Models.
    Chiu CY; Köhn HF; Zheng Y; Henson R
    Psychometrika; 2016 Dec; 81(4):1069-1092. PubMed ID: 27734298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. On the asymptotic standard error of a class of robust estimators of ability in dichotomous item response models.
    Magis D
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 Nov; 67(3):430-50. PubMed ID: 24016181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Heteroscedastic one-factor models and marginal maximum likelihood estimation.
    Hessen DJ; Dolan CV
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):57-77. PubMed ID: 17935662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The Assessment and Impact of Careless Responding in Routine Outcome Monitoring within Mental Health Care.
    Conijn JM; Franz G; Emons WHM; de Beurs E; Carlier IVE
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2019; 54(4):593-611. PubMed ID: 31001995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Reversed item bias: an integrative model.
    Weijters B; Baumgartner H; Schillewaert N
    Psychol Methods; 2013 Sep; 18(3):320-34. PubMed ID: 23646990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Score-based measurement invariance checks for Bayesian maximum-a-posteriori estimates in item response theory.
    Debelak R; Pawel S; Strobl C; Merkle EC
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Nov; 75(3):728-752. PubMed ID: 35670000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effects of careless responding on the fit of confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory models.
    Voss NM
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Feb; 56(2):577-599. PubMed ID: 36737580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Estimation of Parameters of the Rasch Model and Comparison of Groups in Presence of Locally Dependent Items.
    Feddag ML; Blanchin M; Sébille V; Hardouin JB
    J Appl Meas; 2015; 16(3):268-77. PubMed ID: 26753222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Robust Measurement via A Fused Latent and Graphical Item Response Theory Model.
    Chen Y; Li X; Liu J; Ying Z
    Psychometrika; 2018 Sep; 83(3):538-562. PubMed ID: 29532405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Dealing with Careless Responding in Survey Data: Prevention, Identification, and Recommended Best Practices.
    Ward MK; Meade AW
    Annu Rev Psychol; 2023 Jan; 74():577-596. PubMed ID: 35973734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The psychometric properties of the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" Test: an item response theory (IRT) analysis.
    Preti A; Vellante M; Petretto DR
    Cogn Neuropsychiatry; 2017 May; 22(3):233-253. PubMed ID: 28288549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Robustness of Parameter Estimation to Assumptions of Normality in the Multidimensional Graded Response Model.
    Wang C; Su S; Weiss DJ
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(3):403-418. PubMed ID: 29624093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A Deep Learning Algorithm for High-Dimensional Exploratory Item Factor Analysis.
    Urban CJ; Bauer DJ
    Psychometrika; 2021 Mar; 86(1):1-29. PubMed ID: 33528784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.