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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32153477)

  • 1. Validity of Three IRT Models for Measuring and Controlling Extreme and Midpoint Response Styles.
    Zhang Y; Wang Y
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():271. PubMed ID: 32153477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Correcting for Extreme Response Style: Model Choice Matters.
    Schoenmakers M; Tijmstra J; Vermunt J; Bolsinova M
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2024 Feb; 84(1):145-170. PubMed ID: 38250509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Extreme Response Style: A Simulation Study Comparison of Three Multidimensional Item Response Models.
    Leventhal BC
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Jun; 43(4):322-335. PubMed ID: 31156283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A General Unfolding IRT Model for Multiple Response Styles.
    Liu CW; Wang WC
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 May; 43(3):195-210. PubMed ID: 31019356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Item Response Tree Models to Investigate Acquiescence and Extreme Response Styles in Likert-Type Rating Scales.
    Park M; Wu AD
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2019 Oct; 79(5):911-930. PubMed ID: 31488919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Response Styles in the Partial Credit Model.
    Tutz G; Schauberger G; Berger M
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2018 Sep; 42(6):407-427. PubMed ID: 30787485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation on types of invariance in studying extreme response bias with an IRTree approach.
    Jeon M; De Boeck P
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 Nov; 72(3):517-537. PubMed ID: 31292952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A Comparison of Limited-Information Test Statistics for a Response Style MIRT Model.
    Starr J; Falk CF; Monroe SL; Vachon DD
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2021; 56(4):687-702. PubMed ID: 33103932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A psychometric model for respondent-level anchoring on self-report rating scale instruments.
    Lyu W; Bolt DM
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2022 Feb; 75(1):116-135. PubMed ID: 34350978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. IRTree models with ordinal and multidimensional decision nodes for response styles and trait-based rating responses.
    Meiser T; Plieninger H; Henninger M
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2019 Nov; 72(3):501-516. PubMed ID: 30756379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Response style analysis with threshold and multi-process IRT models: A review and tutorial.
    Böckenholt U; Meiser T
    Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2017 Feb; 70(1):159-181. PubMed ID: 28130934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mixture Random-Effect IRT Models for Controlling Extreme Response Style on Rating Scales.
    Huang HY
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1706. PubMed ID: 27853444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mountain or Molehill? A Simulation Study on the Impact of Response Styles.
    Plieninger H
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2017 Jan; 77(1):32-53. PubMed ID: 29795902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Sample Size Requirements for Applying Mixed Polytomous Item Response Models: Results of a Monte Carlo Simulation Study.
    Kutscher T; Eid M; Crayen C
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():2494. PubMed ID: 31798490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Measuring Response Style Stability Across Constructs With Item Response Trees.
    Ames AJ
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2022 Apr; 82(2):281-306. PubMed ID: 35185160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Using IRTree Models to Promote Selection Validity in the Presence of Extreme Response Styles.
    Quirk VL; Kern JL
    J Intell; 2023 Nov; 11(11):. PubMed ID: 37998715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Using a Mixed IRT Model to Assess the Scale Usage in the Measurement of Job Satisfaction.
    Kutscher T; Crayen C; Eid M
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1998. PubMed ID: 28101067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A New Model for Acquiescence at the Interface of Psychometrics and Cognitive Psychology.
    Plieninger H; Heck DW
    Multivariate Behav Res; 2018; 53(5):633-654. PubMed ID: 29843531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Psychometric benefits of self-chosen rating scales over given rating scales.
    Kutscher T; Eid M
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38710987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Stability of Extreme Response Style and Acquiescence Over 8 Years.
    Wetzel E; Lüdtke O; Zettler I; Böhnke JR
    Assessment; 2016 Jun; 23(3):279-91. PubMed ID: 25986062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.