Item Response Theory

Unfortunately, this strategy does not provide assurance that the selected items can discriminate taxon and nontaxon members adequately along the entire range of the construct. This can be achieved by using Golden s (1982) procedure or other applications of item response theory (IRT). These meth-... 

Modern test theory offers the potential for individualized, comparable assessments for the careful examination and application of different health status measures. One such theory is item response theory (IRT). Researchers report that IRT has a number of potential advantages over the currently employed classical test theory in assessing self-reported health outcomes. Applications of the IRT models are ideally suited for implementing computer adaptive testing. IRT methods are also reported to be helpful in developing better health outcome measures and in assessing change over time. ° ... 

Ware, J.E., Jr. Bjorner, J.B. Kosinski, M. Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing A brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med. Care 2000, 38, II73-II82. 

Hays, R. Morales, L. Reise, S. Item response theory and health outcomes measurements in the 21st Century. Med. Care 2000, 38, H-28 11-42. 

McHorncy, C. Cohen, A. Equating health status measures with item response theory Illustrations with functional status items. Med. Care 2000, 38, H-43-II-59. 

This chapter provides an overview of the psychometric properties of the HSOPSC using both classical test theory (CTT) and the modem approach, often referred to as Item Response Theory (IRT). To enhance the understanding and importance of IRT, the basic principles will first be introduced. In partictrlar, three fundamental outcomes of the IRT approach will be highlighted (1) item characteristic curves, (2) measurement information, and (3) invariance. Moreover, this chapter will present data that have been previously analysed and... 

Table 8.1 Glossary of terms used with Item Response Theory...

Baker, F. 2001. The Basics of Item Response Theory. College Park, MD ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Available at http //edies.oig/irt (last accessed on 9 March 2006). 

Chan, K.S., Orlando, M., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Duan, N. and Sheiboume, C.D. 2004. The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiology Studies Depression (CES-D) scale An item response theory analysis. Medical Care, 42, 281-9. 

Embretson, S.E. and Reise, S.P. 2000. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Erlbaum Mahmwah. 

Fhn, R., Bums, C., Meams, K., Yule, S. and Robertson, E.M. 2006. Measuring safety c iva.dXem iea i hcaie. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(2), 109-15. Hays, R.D., Morales, L.S. and Reise, S.P. 2000. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9), 28-42. Helhngs, J., Schrooten, W., Klazinga, N. and Vleugels, A. 2007. Challenging patient safety culture Sitrvey resirlts. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 20, 620-32. 

Hembleton, R.K. and Swaminathan, H.R. 1995. Item Response Theory Principles... 

MacDonald, P. and Paunonen, S.V. 2002. A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. 

Reise, S.P., Aiirsworth, A.T. and Haviland, M.G. 2005. Item response theory Fimdamerrtals, apphcatiorts, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 95-101. 

Reise, S.P., Widaman, K.F. and Pugh, R.H. 1993. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-6. 

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O S. and Drasgow, F. 2006. Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatoiy factor analysis and item response theory Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1292-306. 

In general, the structure itself of the multiple-choice item should not be blamed for a test s deficiencies rather, the way in which the item content is derived, the manner by which items are aggregated, and the theory under which test results are interpreted cause much of the difficulty. As most testing specialists know, it is possible to construct good multiple-choice items that do require a student to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter. These items are not easy to develop. Their content is usually complex, and their response options are carefully crafted to glean information about the student s knowledge. 

---