Item response theory for psychologists

By S. Embretson, S. Reise. 2000

1,651 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1356c684406d0e7e5ea9f6a82b6d6232abf5c0e

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

A Psychometric Revision of the Asian Values Scale Using the Rasch Model (2004, methodology): “The PCM was originally developed for analyzing achievement test items that include multiple solving steps, in which partial credit can be assigned for completing several steps in the solution process (Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
Comparing the Fit of Item Response Theory and Factor Analysis Models (2011, methodology): “For an overview of IRT models and methods, see Hulin, Drasgow, and Parsons (1983), Hambleton and Swaminathan (1985) , Hambleton, Swaminathan, and Rogers (1991), van der Linden and Hambleton (1997), and Embretson and Reise (2000) .”
An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. (2000, background): “These probability functions are known as category response curves (CRCs; Embretson & Reise, in press).”
Gender Differences in Gifted and Average-Ability Students (2008, methodology): “The test is presented in paper-and-pencil format and scaled according to the Rasch model (Likelihood Ratio Test: A = 2.14 X 10- ns; cf. Anderson, 1973; Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
The Factor Structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (2007, methodology): “According to item response theory, all three properties may be assessed using a Rasch model (Bond & Fox, 2001; Embretson & Reise, 2000; van der Wim & Hambleton, 1997), which we undertook for each of the five first-order factors using RUMM 2020 (Rumm Laboratory Pty Ltd, Duncraig, WA, Australia).”
The differential effects of school tracking on psychometric intelligence : Do academic-track schools make students smarter? (2012, result): “In contrast to conventional grade- or age-norm scaling, this approach allowed us to directly model change in younger and older students on a common metric, rather than reporting position stability within cohorts only (see Embretson & Reise, 2000).”
A Synthesis of 15 Years of Research on DIF in Language Testing: Methodological Advances, Challenges, and Recommendations (2007, unknown): “The other set of procedures is grounded predominantly in item response theory (IRT; eg, Embretson & Reise, 2000 ; van der Linden & Hambleton, 1997 ), because the estimated latent variable score is used as the matching criterion to approximate the true underlying latent score.”