ArticleApplied psychological measurement2020
Bias of Two-Level Scalability Coefficients and Their Standard Errors.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two-level Mokken scale analysis is a generalization of Mokken scale analysis for multi-rater data. The bias of estimated scalability coefficients for two-level Mokken scale analysis, the bias of their estimated standard errors, and the coverage of the confidence intervals has been investigated, under various testing conditions. It was found that the estimated scalability coefficients were unbiased in all tested conditions. For estimating standard errors, the delta method and the cluster bootstrap were compared. The cluster bootstrap structurally underestimated the standard errors of the scalability coefficients, with low coverage values. Except for unequal numbers of raters across subjects and small sets of items, the delta method standard error estimates had negligible bias and good coverage. Post hoc simulations showed that the cluster bootstrap does not correctly reproduce the sampling distribution of the scalability coefficients, and an adapted procedure was suggested. In addition, the delta method standard errors can be slightly improved if the harmonic mean is used for unequal numbers of raters per subject rather than the arithmetic mean.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.