Assessing Goodness of Fit of Item Response Theory Models: A Comparison of Traditional and Alternative Procedures

By Clement A. Stone, Bo Zhang. 2003

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Adaptive n-back training does not improve fluid intelligence at the construct level: Gains on individual tests suggest that training may enhance visuospatial processing (2013, methodology): “Significance levels are obtained by aMonte Carlo re-sampling procedure (Stone & Zhang, 2003).”
Practical Guide to Conducting an Item Response Theory Analysis (2014, background): “Given that several statistical tests were being conducted, larger samples lead to a greater likelihood statistically significant results, and the length of the scale is short, item fit statistics were evaluated at the 1% significance level (Stone & Zhang, 2003).”
An Investigation of the Performance of the Generalized S-X2 Item-Fit Index for Polytomous IRT Models (2007, methodology): “2005; Stone, 2000; Stone & Zhang, 2003; Suarez-Falcon & Glas, 2003; Wells, 2004; Yen,”
Are there gender differences in cognitive reflection? Invariance and differences related to mathematics (2018, methodology): “As large samples lead to a greater likelihood of significant chi-square differences, the critical value 6Reliability was 0.82 for males, and 0.76 for females. of p = 0.01, rather than p = 0.05, was used (Stone & Zhang, 2003).”