Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

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 Macdonald, P.
Right arrow Articles by Paunonen, S. V.
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?

A Monte Carlo Comparison of Item and Person Statistics Based on Item Response Theory versus Classical Test Theory

Paul Macdonald

Sampo V. Paunonen

University of Western Ontario

Despite the well-known theoretical advantages of item response theory (IRT) over classical test theory (CTT), research examining their empirical properties has failed to reveal consistent, demonstrable differences. Using Monte Carlo techniques with simulated test data, this study examined the behavior of item and person statistics obtained from these two measurement frameworks. The findings suggest IRT- and CTT-based item difficulty and person ability estimates were highly comparable, invariant, and accurate in the test conditions simulated. However, whereas item discrimination estimates based on IRT were accurate across most of the experimental conditions, CTT-based item discrimination estimates proved accurate under some conditions only. Implications of the results of this study for psychometric item analysis and item selection are discussed.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62, No. 6, 921-943 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402238082
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
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. E. Schumacker and E. V. Smith Jr.
A Rasch Perspective
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 394 - 409.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Early InterventionHome page
P. Yovanoff and J. Squires
Determining Cutoff Scores on a Developmental Screening Measure: Use of Receiver Operating Characteristics and Item Response Theory
Journal of Early Intervention, October 1, 2006; 29(1): 48 - 62.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
A. A. Rupp and B. D. Zumbo
A Note on How to Quantify and Report Whether Irt Parameter Invariance Holds: When Pearson Correlations are Not Enough
Educational and Psychological Measurement, August 1, 2004; 64(4): 588 - 599.
[Abstract] [PDF]