Classical Test Theory as a first-order Item Response Theory: Application to true-score prediction from a possibly nonparallel test

80 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.

Generalizability Theory and Classical Test Theory (2010, unknown): “Kane, M. T. (1982).”
When Can Subscores Have Value? (2008, methodology): “As in classical test theory (Holland & Hoskens, 2003), the observed subscore SX for an examinee randomly selected from a population of examinees and for a test form randomly selected from a collection of parallel test forms is a random variable with finite mean and variance that is decomposed into…”
Equating, Concordance, and Expectation (2004, background): “Lord (1980), Kolen and Brennan (1995), and Dorans and Holland (2000) describe prerequisites for equating which population invariance is most pertinent for distinguishing among concordance and equating.”
The estimation of the IRT reliability coefficient and its lower and upper bounds, with comparisons to CTT reliability statistics (2010, background): “Further, it can be shown by the definition that, over examinees, the observed score variance equals the sum of true score variance and error variance (see Holland and Hoskens 2003; Lord 1980, p. 4):”
Item Response Theory—A Statistical Framework for Educational and Psychological Measurement (2021, unknown): “In particular, CTT can be regarded as a ﬁrst-order IRT model (Holland and Hoskens, 2003).”