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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31054065)

  • 41. Bayesian Covariance Structure Modeling of Responses and Process Data.
    Klotzke K; Fox JP
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():1675. PubMed ID: 31428007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Modeling Learner Heterogeneity: A Mixture Learning Model With Responses and Response Times.
    Zhang S; Wang S
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():2339. PubMed ID: 30568609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Semi-parametric proportional hazards models with crossed random effects for psychometric response times.
    Loeys T; Legrand C; Schettino A; Pourtois G
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2014 May; 67(2):304-27. PubMed ID: 23937392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. A semi-parametric within-subject mixture approach to the analyses of responses and response times.
    Molenaar D; Bolsinova M; Vermunt JK
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2018 May; 71(2):205-228. PubMed ID: 29044460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Bayesian Model Assessment for Jointly Modeling Multidimensional Response Data with Application to Computerized Testing.
    Liu F; Wang X; Hancock R; Chen MH
    Psychometrika; 2022 Dec; 87(4):1290-1317. PubMed ID: 35349031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Modeling Not-Reached Items in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments.
    Liang L; Lu J; Zhang J; Shi N
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():889673. PubMed ID: 35769736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models.
    Tijmstra J; Bolsinova M
    Psychometrika; 2019 Sep; 84(3):846-869. PubMed ID: 30793230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. A hierarchical latent response model for inferences about examinee engagement in terms of guessing and item-level non-response.
    Ulitzsch E; von Davier M; Pohl S
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2020 Nov; 73 Suppl 1():83-112. PubMed ID: 31709521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Marginal likelihood inference for a model for item responses and response times.
    Glas CA; van der Linden WJ
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2010 Nov; 63(Pt 3):603-26. PubMed ID: 20109271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Modelling Conditional Dependence Between Response Time and Accuracy.
    Bolsinova M; de Boeck P; Tijmstra J
    Psychometrika; 2017 Dec; 82(4):1126-1148. PubMed ID: 27738955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Asymmetric Item Characteristic Curves and Item Complexity: Insights from Simulation and Real Data Analyses.
    Lee S; Bolt DM
    Psychometrika; 2018 Jun; 83(2):453-475. PubMed ID: 28948426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Evaluating cognitive theory: a joint modeling approach using responses and response times.
    Klein Entink RH; Kuhn JT; Hornke LF; Fox JP
    Psychol Methods; 2009 Mar; 14(1):54-75. PubMed ID: 19271848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Characterizing the Manifest Probability Distributions of Three Latent Trait Models for Accuracy and Response Time.
    Marsman M; Sigurdardóttir H; Bolsinova M; Maris G
    Psychometrika; 2019 Sep; 84(3):870-891. PubMed ID: 30919229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A Multivariate Multilevel Approach to the Modeling of Accuracy and Speed of Test Takers.
    Klein Entink RH; Fox JP; van der Linden WJ
    Psychometrika; 2009 Mar; 74(1):21-48. PubMed ID: 20037635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Using response time data to reduce testing time in cognitive tests.
    Bertling M; Weeks JP
    Psychol Assess; 2018 Mar; 30(3):328-338. PubMed ID: 28447813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Variable Speed Across Dimensions of Ability in the Joint Model for Responses and Response Times.
    Zhan P; Jiao H; Man K; Wang WC; He K
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():469196. PubMed ID: 33854454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Rasch modeling of accuracy and confidence measures from cognitive tests.
    Paek I; Lee J; Stankov L; Wilson M
    J Appl Meas; 2013; 14(3):232-48. PubMed ID: 23816612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Estimating person parameters via item response model and simple sum score in small samples with few polytomous items: A simulation study.
    Schwall P; Meesters C; Hardt J
    Stat Med; 2019 Sep; 38(21):4040-4050. PubMed ID: 31236972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Sequential Detection of Compromised Items Using Response Times in Computerized Adaptive Testing.
    Choe EM; Zhang J; Chang HH
    Psychometrika; 2018 Sep; 83(3):650-673. PubMed ID: 29168039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Bridging Models of Biometric and Psychometric Assessment: A Three-Way Joint Modeling Approach of Item Responses, Response Times, and Gaze Fixation Counts.
    Man K; Harring JR; Zhan P
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2022 Jul; 46(5):361-381. PubMed ID: 35812811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.