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

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0013164407312601v1
68/4/587    most recent
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 Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Willse, J. T.
Right arrow Articles by Goodman, J. T.
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?

Comparison of Multiple-Indicators, Multiple-Causes– and Item Response Theory–Based Analyses of Subgroup Differences

John T. Willse

University of North Carolina at Greensboro, jtwillse{at}uncg.edu

Joshua T. Goodman

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

This research provides a direct comparison of effect size estimates based on structural equation modeling (SEM), item response theory (IRT), and raw scores. Differences between the SEM, IRT, and raw score approaches are examined under a variety of data conditions (IRT models underlying the data, test lengths, magnitude of group differences, and relative size of reference and focal groups). Results show that all studied methods perform similarly. All methods tend to underestimate effects as effect sizes become larger. SEM-based approaches to effect size estimation perform somewhat better at shorter test lengths, whereas approaches based on IRT and raw score perform somewhat better at longer test lengths. Although these differences between methods are detectable, they are small in magnitude.

Key Words: effect size • item response theory • structural equation modeling

This version was published on August 1, 2008

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 68, No. 4, 587-602 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164407312601
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?