This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Chang, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Connotatively Consistent and Reversed Connotatively Inconsistent Items are Not Fully Equivalent: Generalizability Study

University of Central Florida

This article redefines what has been referred to as "negatively worded items" in the literature. The new term—"connotatively inconsistent items"—is more nearly accurate because it has a broader base for generalization. Using generalizability theory with a sample of 102 graduate students, the study showed that connotatively consistent and reversed connotatively inconsistent items were not fully equivalent.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55, No. 6, 991-997 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164495055006007


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. G. Ponterotito, S. Baluch, T. Greig, and L. Rivera Development and Initial Score Validation of the Teacher Multicultural Altitude Survey Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1998; 58(6): 1002 - 1016. [Abstract]