ArticleApplied psychological measurement2023
Efficiency Analysis of Item Response Theory Kernel Equating for Mixed-Format Tests.
Article in Applied psychological measurement, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the performance of Item Response Theory (IRT) kernel equating in the context of mixed-format tests by comparing it to IRT observed score equating and kernel equating with log-linear presmoothing. Comparisons were made through both simulations and real data applications, under both equivalent groups (EG) and non-equivalent groups with anchor test (NEAT) sampling designs. To prevent bias towards IRT methods, data were simulated with and without the use of IRT models. The results suggest that the difference between IRT kernel equating and IRT observed score equating is minimal, both in terms of the equated scores and their standard errors. The application of IRT models for presmoothing yielded smaller standard error of equating than the log-linear presmoothing approach. When test data were generated using IRT models, IRT-based methods proved less biased than log-linear kernel equating. However, when data were simulated without IRT models, log-linear kernel equating showed less bias. Overall, IRT kernel equating shows great promise when equating mixed-format tests.
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.