Item Response Theory for Items Scored in Two Categories
By D. Thissen, M. Orlando. 2001
176 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/995ab0dd24612f9cf759108b1098aa0a5abd02ab
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
- S. Reise
- Jimmy de la Torre
- Pere J. Ferrando
- Urbano Lorenzo-Seva
- Christine E. DeMars
- B. Reeve
- Richard J. Patz
- Joseph J. Stevens
Citations in the corpus
- A note on improving EAP trait estimation in oblique factor - analytic and item response theory models (2016, methodology): “In unidimensional implementations, Thissen and Orlando (2001) recommended using 30-50 points.”
- Once, Sometimes, or Always in Special Education (2015, methodology): “The developmental scale is constructed using a threeparameter logistic item response theory model (Thissen & Orlando, 2001).”
- A Tutorial on Interpreting Bifactor Model Scores (2013, background): “Reliability of the EAP θ scores can be estimated as 1 − s2e s2θ (Thissen & Orlando, 2001, p. 118; Wainer, Bradlow, & Wang, 2007, p. 76), where s2e is the mean of the squared standard errors and s2θ is the true latent score variance, fixed to 1 in the estimation process.”
- Psychometric Evaluation and Calibration of Health-Related Quality of Life Item Banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (2007, methodology): “Because it allows discrimination to vary item by item, it typically fits response data better than a one-parameter (ie, Rasch) model.(43,49) Further, compared with alternative 2-parameter models such as the generalized partial credit model, the model is relatively easy to understand and illustrate t”
- Making the Most of What We Have: A Practical Application of Multidimensional Item Response Theory in Test Scoring (2005, methodology): “Among several methods of ability estimation, EAP-U has been preferred for its small bias and standard error (Kim & Nicewander, 1993; Thissen & Orlando, 2001).”