Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness.

By J. Linacre. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2002

1,431 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a49df796635ccf797f11bfcec29e88e1310b10f3

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Measuring students’ transition into university and its association with learning outcomes (2012, background): “Even though we acknowledge the debate about setting cut-off points for acceptable ranges of fit statistics (Linacre, 2002; Smith et al., 1998), we consider existing recommendations regarding the format of our data and take the value of 1.”
The association between mathematics pedagogy and learners' dispositions for university study (2012, background): “Acceptable ranges for fit statistics vary in the literature (Smith et al , 1998 ; Linacre, 2002 ) and are usually defined by an interval close to 1 (eg, within the range 0.”
Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making and conformity assessment (2014, unknown): “In the literature (Linacre 2002), a recommended value of a reliability coefficient is 0.8, corresponding to a ‘separation’ of G = 2, or in other words, a measurement uncertainty √ var (εθ ) not larger than half the object standard deviation √ var (θ).”
A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research (2020, methodology): “96 has been proposed (Linacre, 2002a).”
The Effects of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency on Communicative Adequacy in Oral Task Performance (2014, background): “The infit mean square values were all in the acceptable range of .50 to 1.50 (Linacre 2002) after one misfitting rater had been removed after preliminary analyses.”
Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability (2008, background): “Moreover, the outfit mean-square values for the rating scale categories were reasonably close to the expected value of 1 (see Linacre, 2004).”
Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms (2009, methodology): “On the other hand, Linacre (2002a), the developer of the FACETS software, has stated that infit mean square values of .50 to 1.50 are fruitful for measurement.”
Validation of A Trust In Medical Technology Instrument (2010, methodology): “The WINSTEPS (Linacre, 2002) software package was used to estimate the parameters in the model, which were reported on a single linear continuum in logistic odds ratio units (logits) (Smith, 2000). pnix ¼ exp Px j¼0 Dðqn di skÞ Pm k¼0 exp Pk j¼0 D qn di sj”
Using psychometric techniques to improve the Balance Evaluation System’s Test: the mini-BESTest (2010, unknown): “Following the above analysis and item exclusion, the matrix of item responses of the 24 retained items for each subject underwent Rasch analysis using the WINSTEPS software (Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program - version 3.68.”
Current directions in self-efficacy research in sport (2011, methodology): “Vol. 6, nº 2 (2011)194 Determination of an optimal categorization is important because it increases the likelihood of measure stability, measure accuracy, and related inference for future samples (Linacre, 2002).”
Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance (2018, methodology): “This was done to stabilize the data in line with guidelines in the literature related to quality of rating scales (e.g., Dimitrov, 2012; Linacre, 2002).”
Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Academic Resilience in Mathematics (2017, background): “Linacre (2004) offers as a guideline that there should be at least 25 observations in each category.”
A Psychometric Revision of the Asian Values Scale Using the Rasch Model (2004, methodology): “Because it is always uncertain how a rating scale was used by individuals in a sample, an investigation of the functioning of the rating scale is always necessary (Linacre, 2002) and can be done with the Rasch analysis.”
Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire: Psychometric Evaluation of a New Assessment of Competence in Technology Use (2009, methodology): “Another criterion for assessing the quality of the rating scale is provided by the analysis of goodness-of-fit statistics: outfit mean-square values less than 2.0 are recommended for a rating scale (Linacre, 2004).”
Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues (2004, result): “The authors of this work have found that exclusion of the neutral category, and the use of a manageable six step scale, resulted in a rating scale structure that conformed to characteristics outlined by measurement specialists such as Linacre (2002).”