This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Feldt, L. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Some Relationships between the Binomial Error Model and Classical Test Theory

University of Iowa

Straightforward application of the binomial error model defines parallel forms as random samples of items from a large pool of items. Such a model includes form-to-form differences in difficulty as a component of error variance and leads to Kuder-Richardson formula 21 as an estimate of reliability. Such a component is inappropriate if all examinees take the same form of the test. It is demonstrated here that if the form-to-form component is removed from the estimate of average error variance, the binomial model leads to KR 20 as the estimate of reliability. Empirical data are cited which support deductions from the compound binomial error model regarding the trend in the standard error of measurement over the observed score range. A computational formula derived from this model is recommended for two practical purposes: to estimate the standard error for individual examinees or to implement the recommendation in the APA/AERA/NCME Standards (1974) that the standard error of measurement be reported for several score levels.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 44, No. 4, 883-891 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164484444010


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W.-C. Lee Multinomial and Compound Multinomial Error Models for Tests With Complex Item Scoring Applied Psychological Measurement, July 1, 2007; 31(4): 255 - 274. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S.-W. Chang Methods in Scaling the Basic Competence Test Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2006; 66(6): 907 - 929. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W.-C. Lee, R. L. Brennan, and M. J. Kolen Interval Estimation for True Raw and Scale Scores Under the Binomial Error Model Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 2006; 31(3): 261 - 281. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Brennan and W.-C. Lee Conditional Scale-Score Standard Errors of Measurement under Binomial and Compound Binomial Assumptions Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 1999; 59(1): 5 - 24. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Brennan Raw-Score Conditional Standard Errors of Measurement in Generalizability Theory Applied Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1998; 22(4): 307 - 331. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. W. Zimmerman, B. D. Zumbo, and C. Lalonde Coefficient Alpha as an Estimate of Test Reliability Under Violation of Two Assumptions Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1993; 53(1): 33 - 49. [Abstract]

				D. Jarjoura An Estimator of Examinee-Level Measurement Error Variance That Considers Test Form Difficulty Adjustments Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1986; 10(2): 175 - 186. [Abstract]

				L. S. Feldt, M. Steffen, and N. C. Gupta A Comparison of Five Methods for Estimating the Standard Error of Measurement at Specific Score Levels Applied Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1985; 9(4): 351 - 361. [Abstract]