Publicación: Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests
Cargando...
Fecha
2015-05-19
Editor/a
Director/a
Tutor/a
Coordinador/a
Prologuista
Revisor/a
Ilustrador/a
Derechos de acceso
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
SAGE Publications
Resumen
This article explores how traditional scores obtained from different forced-choice (FC) formats relate to their true scores and item response theory (IRT) estimates. Three FC formats are considered from a block of items, and respondents are asked to (a) pick the item that describes them most (PICK), (b) choose the two items that describe them the most and the least (MOLE), or (c) rank all the items in the order of their descriptiveness of the respondents (RANK). The multi-unidimensional pairwise-preference (MUPP) model, which is extended to more than two items per block and different FC formats, is applied to obtain the responses to each item block. Traditional and IRT (i.e., expected a posteriori) scores are computed from each data set and compared. The aim is to clarify the conditions under which simpler traditional scoring procedures for FC formats may be used in place of the more appropriate IRT estimates for the purpose of inter-individual comparisons. Six independent variables are considered: response format, number of items per block, correlation between the dimensions, item discrimination level, and sign-heterogeneity and variability of item difficulty parameters. Results show that the RANK response format outperforms the other formats for both the IRT estimates and traditional scores, although it is only slightly better than the MOLE format. The highest correlations between true and traditional scores are found when the test has a large number of blocks, dimensions assessed are independent, items have high discrimination and highly dispersed location parameters, and the test contains blocks formed by positive and negative items.
Descripción
La versión registrada de este artículo, publicado por primera vez en Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(8), 598-612, está disponible en línea en el sitio web del editor: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621615585851
The recorded version of this article, first published in Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(8), 598-612, is available online at the publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621615585851
Categorías UNESCO
Palabras clave
forced choice, ipsative data, multi-unidimensional pairwise-preference, MUPP, unfolding model, GGUM, EAP, traditional scoring, personality assessment, faking
Citación
Hontangas, P. M., de la Torre, J., Ponsoda, V., Leenen, I., Morillo, D., & Abad, F. J. (2015). Comparing Traditional and IRT Scoring of Forced-Choice Tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39(8), 598-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621615585851
Centro
Facultad de Psicología
Departamento
Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento