Comparing the Aberrant Response Detection Performance of Thirty-Six Person-Fit Statistics

By George Karabatsos. 2003

283 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/39ba726f5c0e9559e4c3c069799eaa6dea87c5de

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Citations in the corpus

Response Time Effort: A New Measure of Examinee Motivation in Computer-Based Tests (2005, methodology): “Karabatsos (2003) compared 36 person-fit indices, concluding that MCI was one of the five best indices for identifying aberrantly-responding examinees.”
Measuring Motivation in Low-Stakes Assessments (2015, background): “Karmos and Karmos (1984) found that for students in Grades 6–9 performance on a standardized achievement test was related to perception of effort, importance of the test, and how the test results would be used.”
Improving Person-Fit Assessment by Correcting the Ability Estimate and Its Reference Distribution. (2008, background): “Many different PFSs have been developed for assessing person fit (Karabatsos, 2003; Meijer & Sijtsma, 2001).”
Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement (2007, background): “There are a number of different types of person fit indices that vary in their applicability [47].”
A Systematic Review of the Methodology for Person Fit Research in Item Response Theory: Lessons about Generalizability of Inferences from the Design of Simulation Studies (2013, methodology): “Results could then be explicitly broken down only for the factors that showed notable interactions (for a good example of this see, e.g., Gushta, 2012), preferably using figures rather than tables (Cook & Teo, 2011) similar to the idea embodied by Karabatsos (2003).”
A Didactic Presentation of Snijders’s lz* Index of Person Fit With Emphasis on Response Model Selection and Ability Estimation (2012, background): “For a broad overview of the different indexes, parametric or not, see Karabatsos (2003), Klauer (1995), Levine and Drasgow (1982; 1988), and Meijer and Sijtsma (2001), as well as the first issue of the 1996 volume of Applied Measurement in Education.”
Random Responding as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in Correlational Research (2010, methodology): “More sophisticated indicators of random responding to tests of ability or knowledge are, of course, available (for a review, see Karabatsos, 2003), but many of these indicators are impossible to calculate for the responses to inventories that are not measures of achievement or where the sample size…”