Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: January 2011

12 - Rasch analysis

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

References

1. AndrichD, StylesIM. Report on the Psychometric Analysis of the Early Development instrument (EDI) Using the Rasch Model. Perth, WA: Murdoch University, 2004.
2. NovickMR. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol 1966; 3: 1–18.
3. AllenMJ, YenWM. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979.
4. LordFM.Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
5. HobartJ, CanoS. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in MS: the role of new psychometric methods. Monogr UK Health Technol Assess Prog 2009; 13(12): 1–200.
6. HobartJ, CanoS, ZajicekJ, ThompsonA. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 1094–1105.
7. ThurstoneLL. Theory of attitude measurement. Psychol Rev 1929; 36: 222–241.
8. RichardsonM. The relationship between item difficulty and the differential validity of a test. Psychometrika 1936; 1: 33–49.
9. FergusonGA. Item selection by the constant process. Psychometrika 1942; 7: 19–29.
10. FergusonGA. On the theory of test development. Psychometrika 1949; 14: 61–68.
11. FergusonL. A study of the Likert technique of attitude scale construct. J Soc Psychol 1941; 13: 51–57.
12. LawleyDN. The factorial analysis of multiple item tests. Proc Roy Soc Edinburgh 1944; 62-A: 74–82.
13. LawleyDN. On problems corrected with item selection and test construction. Proc Roy Soc Edinburgh 1943; 6: 273–287.
14. TuckerLR. Maximum validity of a test with equivalent items. Psychometrika 1946; 11: 1–13.
15. BrogdenH. Variation in test validity with variation in the distribution of item difficulties, number of items, and degree of their intercorrelations. Psychometrika 1946; 11: 197–214.
16. LazarsfeldPF. The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. In: Stouffer SA et al., eds. Measurement and Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.
17. LordF. A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monogr 1952; No. 7.
18. LordFM. The relation of the reliability of multiple-choice tests to the distribution of item difficulties. Psychometrika 1952; 17(2): 181–194.
19. HambletonRK, SwaminathanH. Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1985.
20. LordFM, NovickMR. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
21. BirnbaumA. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In: Lord FM, ed. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
22. WallerM. Estimating parameters in the Rasch model: removing the effects of random guessing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1976.
23. LumsdenJ. Person reliability. Appl Psychol Meas 1977; 1: 477–482.
24. ThissenD, SteinbergL. A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika 1986; 51(4): 567–577.
25. RaschG. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Chicago: Danish Institute for Education Research, 1960.
26. AndrichD. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004; 42(1): I7–I16.
27. AndrichD, personal communication, 2006.
28. WrightBD. Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. J Educ Meas 1977; 14(2): 97–116.
29. WrightBD, StoneMH. Best Test Design: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA, 1979.
30. WrightBD, MastersG. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago: MESA, 1982.
31. AndrichD. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978; 43: 561–573.
32. WrightBD. IRT in the 1990's: which models work best?Rasch Meas Trans 1992; 6(1): 196–200.
33. MassofR. The measurement of vision disability. Optometry Vision Sci 2002; 79: 516–552.
34. DivgiD. Does the Rasch model really work for multiple choice items? Not if you look closely. J Educ Meas 1986; 23(4): 283–298.
35. SuenHK. Principles of Test Theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.
36. CookK, MonahanP, McHorneyC. Delicate balance between theory and practice. Med Care 2003; 41(5): 571–574.
37. StevensSS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946; 103(2684): 677–680.
38. NunnallyJC. Psychometric Theory. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
39. CronbachLJ. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 5th ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1990.
40. AnastasiA, UrbinaS. Psychological Testing. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
41. GhiselliE. Theory of Psychological Measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
42. HelmstadterG. Principles of Psychological Measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.
43. HorstP. Psychological Measurement and Prediction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1966.
44. KaplanRM, SaccuzzoDP. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1993.
45. TorgersonWS. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.
46. BrownFG. Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1970.
47. BohrnstedtGW. Measurement. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB, eds. Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press, 1983; 69–121.
48. Von HelmholtzH. All science is measurement. Unreferenced citation. In: Hill AB. Principles of Medical Statistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 6.
49. CampbellN. Physics: The Elements. London: Cambridge University Press, 1920.
50. PerlineR, WrightBD, WainerH. The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Appl Psychol Meas 1979; 3(2): 237–255.
51. LuceRD, TukeyJW. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J Math Psychol 1964; 1: 1–27.
52. MichellJ. An Introduction to the Logic of Psychological Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.
53. AndrichD. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Psychol Res 1982; 9(1): 95–104.
54. DuncanOD. Probability, disposition and the inconsistency of attitudes and behaviours. Synthese 1985; 42: 21–34.
55. McHorneyCA, TarlovAR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293–307.
56. McHorneyCA, HaleySM, WareJEJ. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(4): 451–461.
57. PrietoL, AlonsoJ, LamarcaR.Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 27.
58. HobartJC, RiaziA, ThompsonAJ, et al. Getting the measure of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88). Brain 2006; 129(1): 224–234.