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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37810542)

  • 1. Comparing Person-Fit and Traditional Indices Across Careless Response Patterns in Surveys.
    Jones EA; Wind SA; Tsai CL; Ge Y
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2023 Sep; 47(5-6):365-385. PubMed ID: 37810542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using Mokken scaling techniques to explore carelessness in survey research.
    Wind S; Wang Y
    Behav Res Methods; 2023 Oct; 55(7):3370-3415. PubMed ID: 36131197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Person-Fit as an Index of Inattentive Responding: A Comparison of Methods Using Polytomous Survey Data.
    Beck MF; Albano AD; Smith WM
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2019 Jul; 43(5):374-387. PubMed ID: 31235983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effectiveness of warning statements in reducing careless responding in crowdsourced online surveys.
    Brühlmann F; Memeti Z; Aeschbach LF; Perrig SAC; Opwis K
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 38238528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Identifying careless responses in survey data.
    Meade AW; Craig SB
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Sep; 17(3):437-55. PubMed ID: 22506584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An Iterative Parametric Bootstrap Approach to Evaluating Rater Fit.
    Guo W; Wind SA
    Appl Psychol Meas; 2021 Jul; 45(5):315-330. PubMed ID: 34565938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Using heterogeneous sources of data and interpretability of prediction models to explain the characteristics of careless respondents in survey data.
    Kopitar L; Stiglic G
    Sci Rep; 2023 Aug; 13(1):13417. PubMed ID: 37591974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Careless responding in internet-based quality of life assessments.
    Schneider S; May M; Stone AA
    Qual Life Res; 2018 Apr; 27(4):1077-1088. PubMed ID: 29248996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A sequential Moken scaling approach to evaluate response quality in survey research.
    Wind SA; Lugu B; Wang Y
    Behav Res Methods; 2024 Mar; 56(3):2273-2291. PubMed ID: 37311866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluating the Impact of Multidimensionality on Type I and Type II Error Rates using the Q-Index Item Fit Statistic for the Rasch Model.
    Estrada S
    J Appl Meas; 2020; 21(4):496-514. PubMed ID: 33989202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Rasch fit statistics as a test of the invariance of item parameter estimates.
    Smith RM; Suh KK
    J Appl Meas; 2003; 4(2):153-63. PubMed ID: 12748407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Detecting Careless Responding in Survey Data Using Stochastic Gradient Boosting.
    Schroeders U; Schmidt C; Gnambs T
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2022 Feb; 82(1):29-56. PubMed ID: 34992306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using the Bootstrap Method to Evaluate the Critical Range of Misfit for Polytomous Rasch Fit Statistics.
    Seol H
    Psychol Rep; 2016 Jun; 118(3):937-56. PubMed ID: 27207735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An Examination of Sensitivity to Measurement Error in Rasch Residual-based Fit Statistics.
    Padgett RN; Morgan GB
    J Appl Meas; 2019; 20(4):354-366. PubMed ID: 31730543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Using Household Fit Indices to Examine the Psychometric Quality of Food Insecurity Measures.
    Engelhard G; Rabbitt MP; Engelhard EM
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2018 Dec; 78(6):1089-1107. PubMed ID: 30559515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Computing confidence intervals of item fit statistics in the family of Rasch models using the bootstrap method.
    Su YH; Sheu CF; Wang WC
    J Appl Meas; 2007; 8(2):190-203. PubMed ID: 17440261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is the Patient Activation Measure a valid measure of osteoarthritis self-management attitudes and capabilities? Results of a Rasch analysis.
    Eyles JP; Ferreira M; Mills K; Lucas BR; Robbins SR; Williams M; Lee H; Appleton S; Hunter DJ
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2020 May; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 32370751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Stability of INFIT and OUTFIT Compared to Simulated Estimates in Applied Setting.
    Hodge KJ; Morgan GB
    J Appl Meas; 2017; 18(4):383-392. PubMed ID: 29252207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.