159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31488915)
21. Study Protocol on Intentional Distortion in Personality Assessment: Relationship with Test Format, Culture, and Cognitive Ability.
Van Geert E; Orhon A; Cioca IA; Mamede R; Golušin S; Hubená B; Morillo D
Front Psychol; 2016; 7():933. PubMed ID: 27445902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Forced-Choice Assessment of Work-Related Maladaptive Personality Traits: Preliminary Evidence From an Application of Thurstonian Item Response Modeling.
Guenole N; Brown AA; Cooper AJ
Assessment; 2018 Jun; 25(4):513-526. PubMed ID: 27056730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Joint modeling of the two-alternative multidimensional forced-choice personality measurement and its response time by a Thurstonian D-diffusion item response model.
Bunji K; Okada K
Behav Res Methods; 2020 Jun; 52(3):1091-1107. PubMed ID: 32394181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Fit Indices for Measurement Invariance Tests in the Thurstonian IRT Model.
Lee H; Smith WZ
Appl Psychol Meas; 2020 Jun; 44(4):282-295. PubMed ID: 32536730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Does multidimensional forced-choice prevent faking? Comparing the susceptibility of the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format to faking.
Wetzel E; Frick S; Brown A
Psychol Assess; 2021 Feb; 33(2):156-170. PubMed ID: 33151727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Controlling for Response Biases in Self-Report Scales: Forced-Choice vs. Psychometric Modeling of Likert Items.
Kreitchmann RS; Abad FJ; Ponsoda V; Nieto MD; Morillo D
Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2309. PubMed ID: 31681103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. An Item Response Theory Model for Incorporating Response Times in Forced-Choice Measures.
Guo Z; Wang D; Cai Y; Tu D
Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Jun; 84(3):450-480. PubMed ID: 38756463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Why Forced-Choice and Likert Items Provide the Same Information on Personality, Including Social Desirability.
Bäckström M; Björklund F
Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Jun; 84(3):549-576. PubMed ID: 38756462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Multidimensional Forced-Choice CAT With Dominance Items: An Empirical Comparison With Optimal Static Testing Under Different Desirability Matching.
Lin Y; Brown A; Williams P
Educ Psychol Meas; 2023 Apr; 83(2):322-350. PubMed ID: 36866068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Item Response Theory Models for Ipsative Tests With Multidimensional Pairwise Comparison Items.
Wang WC; Qiu XL; Chen CW; Ro S; Jin KY
Appl Psychol Meas; 2017 Nov; 41(8):600-613. PubMed ID: 29881107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Modeling Faking in the Multidimensional Forced-Choice Format: The Faking Mixture Model.
Frick S
Psychometrika; 2022 Jun; 87(2):773-794. PubMed ID: 34927219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A dual process item response theory model for polytomous multidimensional forced-choice items.
Qiu X; de la Torre J
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2023 Nov; 76(3):491-512. PubMed ID: 36967236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Modeling Multidimensional Forced Choice Measures with the Zinnes and Griggs Pairwise Preference Item Response Theory Model.
Joo SH; Lee P; Stark S
Multivariate Behav Res; 2023; 58(2):241-261. PubMed ID: 34370564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Multidimensional IRT for forced choice tests: A literature review.
Nie L; Xu P; Hu D
Heliyon; 2024 Mar; 10(5):e26884. PubMed ID: 38449643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. GGUM-RANK Statement and Person Parameter Estimation With Multidimensional Forced Choice Triplets.
Lee P; Joo SH; Stark S; Chernyshenko OS
Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 May; 43(3):226-240. PubMed ID: 31019358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Thurstonian Scaling of Compositional Questionnaire Data.
Brown A
Multivariate Behav Res; 2016; 51(2-3):345-56. PubMed ID: 27054408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Analysing Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM-LS) with Bayesian Item Response Models.
Bürkner PC
J Intell; 2020 Feb; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 32033073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Item response theory in high-stakes pharmacy assessments.
Wolcott MD; Olsen AA; Augustine JM
Curr Pharm Teach Learn; 2022 Sep; 14(9):1206-1214. PubMed ID: 36154966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
