ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2022
On the Relationship Between Item Stem Formulation and Criterion Validity of Multiple-Component Measuring Instruments.
Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic Content Validation of Pediatric Trust Instruments Using Persona-Driven Large Language Models: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Psychometric Validation of Trust, Commitment, and Satisfaction Scales to Measure Marital Relationship Quality Among Newly Married Women in Nepal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The ITEM Ontology: A Tool to Elucidate the Anatomy of Psychometric Indicators.Information systems research : ISR · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity in Measures and Rates of Reported Dementia and Subjective Memory Complaints Across U.S. National Surveys.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The possible dependency of criterion validity on item formulation in a multicomponent measuring instrument is examined. The discussion is concerned with evaluation of the differences in criterion validity between two or more groups (populations/subpopulations) that have been administered instruments with items having differently formulated item stems. The case of complex item stems involving two stimuli description sentences (double-barreled questions) is thereby compared with the setting where items contained a single sentence. Using empirical data, the latent criterion validity differences are evaluated across three groups that are randomly assigned to conditions characterized by item stems with differing number of stimuli. The results indicate that validity of an instrument can be influenced by the specific way item stem is formulated. Implications for empirical educational, behavioral, and social science research are discussed.
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.