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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39311829)

  • 1. An overview of alternative formats to the Likert format: A comment on Wilson et al. (2022).
    Zhang X; Savalei V
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Jun; 29(3):606-612. PubMed ID: 39311829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Seeking a better balance between efficiency and interpretability: Comparing the likert response format with the Guttman response format.
    Wilson M; Bathia S; Morell L; Gochyyev P; Koo BW; Smith R
    Psychol Methods; 2023 Dec; 28(6):1358-1373. PubMed ID: 35025582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing the Psychometric Properties of a Scale Across Three Likert and Three Alternative Formats: An Application to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
    Zhang X; Zhou L; Savalei V
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2023 Aug; 83(4):649-683. PubMed ID: 37398842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improved Properties of the Big Five Inventory and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in the Expanded Format Relative to the Likert Format.
    Zhang X; Tse WW; Savalei V
    Front Psychol; 2019; 10():1286. PubMed ID: 31214090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Measuring Self-Esteem with Expanded Format in a Fraction of Time: ESE-S and ESE-US.
    Kam CCS; Cheng EH; Cui T
    J Pers Assess; 2024; 106(2):196-207. PubMed ID: 37782046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improving the Factor Structure of Psychological Scales: The Expanded Format as an Alternative to the Likert Scale Format.
    Zhang X; Savalei V
    Educ Psychol Meas; 2016 Jun; 76(3):357-386. PubMed ID: 27182074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Constructed response formats and their effects on minority-majority differences and validity.
    Lievens F; Sackett PR; Dahlke JA; Oostrom JK; De Soete B
    J Appl Psychol; 2019 May; 104(5):715-726. PubMed ID: 30431296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Using Harter and Likert Response Formats in Middle Childhood: A Comparison of Attachment Measures.
    Marci T; Moscardino U; Lionetti F; Santona A; Altoé G
    Assessment; 2020 Dec; 27(8):1821-1835. PubMed ID: 30873856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Response formats and satisfaction surveys for elders.
    Castle NG; Engberg J
    Gerontologist; 2004 Jun; 44(3):358-67. PubMed ID: 15197290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The use of Likert scales with children.
    Mellor D; Moore KA
    J Pediatr Psychol; 2014 Apr; 39(3):369-79. PubMed ID: 24163438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A Comparison of the Nomological Networks Associated With Forced-Choice and Likert Formats of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
    Miller JD; Gentile B; Carter NT; Crowe M; Hoffman BJ; Campbell WK
    J Pers Assess; 2018; 100(3):259-267. PubMed ID: 28436690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analyzing a German-language Expanded Form of the PhoPhiKat-45: Psychometric Properties, Factorial Structure, Measurement Invariance with the Likert-Version, and Self-Peer Convergence.
    Brauer K; Proyer RT
    J Pers Assess; 2021; 103(2):267-277. PubMed ID: 32057257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The new psychometrics: Comment on Appelbaum et al. (2018).
    Rossiter JR
    Am Psychol; 2018 Oct; 73(7):930-931. PubMed ID: 30284891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing the validity of trait estimates from the multidimensional forced-choice format and the rating scale format.
    Wetzel E; Frick S
    Psychol Assess; 2020 Mar; 32(3):239-253. PubMed ID: 31738070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Psychometric features of an assessment instrument with likert and dichotomous response formats.
    Capik C; Gozum S
    Public Health Nurs; 2015; 32(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 25227501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. To bin or not to bin? A comparison of symptom frequency response formats in the assessment of health-related quality of life.
    Magnus BE; Kirkman M; Dutta T; Kaur M; Mannchen N
    Qual Life Res; 2019 Mar; 28(3):841-853. PubMed ID: 30484119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of new multimedia formats for cancer communications.
    Bader JL; Strickman-Stein N
    J Med Internet Res; 2003; 5(3):e16. PubMed ID: 14517107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Longer response scales improved the acceptability and performance of the Nottingham Health Profile.
    Cleopas A; Kolly V; Perneger TV
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Nov; 59(11):1183-90. PubMed ID: 17027429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Different approaches to modeling response styles in divide-by-total item response theory models (part 1): A model integration.
    Henninger M; Meiser T
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Oct; 25(5):560-576. PubMed ID: 33017166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Similarities and differences: Comment on Chan et al. (2021).
    Jones PM; Mitchell CJ; Wills AJ; Spicer SG
    J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2021 Apr; 47(2):216-217. PubMed ID: 34264726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.