Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wright, B. D.
Right arrow Articles by Douglas, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Conditional Versus Unconditional Procedures for Sample-Free Item Analysis

Benjamin D. Wright

University of Chicago

Graham A. Douglas

University of Western Australia

Two procedures for Rasch, sample-free, item calibration are reviewed and compared for accuracy. Andersen's (1972) theoretically ideal "conditional" procedure is impractical for calibrating more than 10 or 15 items. A simplified alternative procedure for conditional estimation practical for 20 or 30 items which produces equivalent estimates is developed. When more than 30 items are analyzed recourse to Wright's (1969) widely used "unconditional" procedure is inevitable but that procedure is biased. A correction factor which makes the bias negligible is identified and demonstrated.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 37, No. 1, 47-60 (1977)
DOI: 10.1177/001316447703700106
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
D. Andrich and Guanzhong Luo
A Hyperbolic Cosine Latent Trait Model For Unfolding Dichotomous Single-Stimulus Responses
Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1993; 17(3): 253 - 276.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
D. Andrich
A Probabilistic IRT Model for Unfolding Preference Data
Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1989; 13(2): 193 - 216.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
D. Andrich
The Application of an Unfolding Model of the PIRT Type to the Measurement of Attitude
Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1988; 12(1): 33 - 51.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
F. Drasgow
Choice of Test Model for Appropriateness Measurement
Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1982; 6(3): 297 - 308.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICSHome page
H. Wainer, A. Morgan, and J.-E. Gustafsson
A Review of Estimation Procedures for the Rasch Model with an Eye toward Longish Tests
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1980; 5(1): 35 - 64.
[Abstract] [PDF]