An NCME Instructional Module on Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory and Their Applications to Test Development.

By R. K. Hambleton, Russell W. Jones. 2005

848 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.

Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis (2011, background): “Rasch modelling helps reveal if there is a consistency with students’ proficiency level and the item difficulty index (Embretson & Reise, 2000; Hambleton & Jones, 1993; Wilson, 2005).”
Mindfulness In Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ): Development and Validation of a Measure of Mindful Parenting (2017, methodology): “This property of IRT underlies modern testing adaptations, such as Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT), and is considered a primary benefit of choosing an IRT approach (Hambleton & Jones, 1993).”
Understanding Parameter Invariance in Unidimensional IRT Models (2006, background): “…invariance that is frequently cited in introductory or advanced texts as one of their most important characteristics (e.g., Embretson & Reise, 2000; Hambleton & Jones, 1993; Lord, 1980; van der Linden & Hambleton, 63 Educational and Psychological Measurement Volume 66 Number 1 February 2006 63-84…”
A Monte Carlo Comparison of Item and Person Statistics Based on Item Response Theory versus Classical Test Theory (2002, methodology): “This invariance property of IRT models has been demonstrated extensively and has been widely accepted MACDONALD AND PAUNONEN 923 (Hambleton & Jones, 1993; Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985; Hambleton et al., 1991; Rudner, 1983; van der Linden & Hambleton, 1997).”