Item Response Theory for Psychologists

By P. Fayers. 2004

2,923 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

The limits and potentials of deep learning for robotics (2018, background): “If this is to be done in an exhaustive manner, we need to leverage item response theory [26], which will let us map each stimulus condition to a performance point (e.g., model accuracy).”
Latent Variable Theory (2008, neutral): “…and the latent variable is continuous, then we have an Item Response Theory (IRT) model (Rasch, 1960; Birnbaum, 1968; Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985; Embretson & Reise, 2000; Sijtsma & Molenaar, 2002); if the observed and latent variables are both categorical, the resulting model is known as a…”
Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections (2006, methodology): “Using software programmes one can determine how well items fit with this model, how difficult they are, and how well they discriminate between students of differing ability, which represents a significant advance over Classical Test Theory-based models (Embretson & Reise, 2000 ; Hambleton, Swaminat”
The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures (2007, methodology): “Item response theory (IRT) [1] methods were developed in the context of large-scale assessment to more efficiently and accurately measure broadband dimensional constructs such as verbal and quantitative aptitude.”
A Monte Carlo Comparison of Parametric and Nonparametric Polytomous DIF Detection Methods (2002, methodology): “…selecting among polytomous IRT models, practitioners commonly rely more on practical considerations— such as a model’s attractive statistical properties, its parsimony, its familiarity to the practitioner, or the availability of software—in deciding which model to use (Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
Understanding Parameter Invariance in Unidimensional IRT Models (2006, methodology): “It is used directly in computer-adaptive testing, cognitive diagnostic assessment, and test equating, among other applications (e.g., Embretson & Reise, 2000; Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991; Junker, 1999; Kaskowitz & de Ayala, 2001).”
The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future (2018, methodology): “The focus in this section is on the methods of classical test theory (CTT, Nunnally, 1978) rather than item response theory (Embretson & Reise, 2000) because CTT has been the prevailing methodology in the development of standardized usability questionnaires.”
Item Response Theory—A Statistical Framework for Educational and Psychological Measurement (2021, positive): “Probit (normal ogive) models, which were ﬁrst proposed in Lawley (1943, 1944), are also commonly used (Embretson and Reise, 2000).”
Initial Construction of a Maladaptive Personality Trait Model and Inventory for DSM-5 (2011, methodology): “Once each facet had been reduced to items that (1) fit a one-factor model, and (2) all loaded highly on the facet, we examined the results in an item response theory (IRT) framework (for a thorough description of IRT-based theory and methods, see Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
Development and Validity of a Dutch Version of the Remote Associates Task: An Item-Response Theory Approach. (2012, methodology): “Data analysis Psychometric theory offers two approaches to evaluate the design, analysis, and scoring of tests: Classical Test Theory CTT) and IRT (see Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
When Are Multidimensional Data Unidimensional Enough for Structural Equation Modeling? An Evaluation of the DETECT Multidimensionality Index (2015, methodology): “Accordingly, in applications of unidimensional IRT models, it is common to see reports of “unidimensional enough” indexes, such as the relative first-factor strength as assessed by the ratio of the first to second eigenvalues (Ackerman, 1989; Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviour: a Rasch modelling approach (2015, positive): “This means that the estimation of teaching skill levels is not affected by the presence of minor factors (Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (2018, background): “Measurement invariance and non-DIF refer to whether respondents from different groups with the same latent trait level (allowing for group differences) respond similarly to a particular item [34].”
Measuring Cultural Consonance: Examples with Special Reference to Measurement Theory in Anthropology (2005, methodology): “Measurement models in psychology include both classic test theory (Guilford 1954; Nunnally 1978) and item response theory (Embretson and Reise 2000; DeVellis 2003).”
Unique Characteristics of Diagnostic Classification Models: A Comprehensive Review of the Current State-of-the-Art (2008, methodology): “…such as latent class models (Haagenars & McCutcheon, 2002), factor analysis (FA) models (McDonald, 1999) and various item response theory (IRT) models (Embretson & Reise, 2000) by drawing on nine statistical and substantive characteristics grounded in the definition proposed in the second section.”
The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Instruction (2007, background): “However, measurement theory tells us that the more values a scale has, the more precise the measurement (Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
Item Response Theory: What It Is and How You Can Use the IRT Procedure to Apply It (2014, methodology): “For general references about various IRT models, see De Ayala (2009) and Embretson and Reise (2000).”
A Comparison of Item Response Theory and Confirmatory Factor Analytic Methodologies for Establishing Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (2004, methodology): “For dichotomous IRT models, the b parameter is typically referred to as Meade, Lautenschlager / COMPARISON OF IRT AND CFA 363 the item difficulty parameter (see Lord, 1980, or Embretson & Reise, 2000, for general introductions to IRT methods).”