ReviewHeliyon2024
Multidimensional IRT for forced choice tests: A literature review.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Deep Learning-Based Latent Trait Model for Forced-Choice Personality Assessment.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Dominant Trait Profile Method of Scoring Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires.Educational and psychological measurement · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Multidimensional Forced Choice (MFC) test is frequently utilized in non-cognitive evaluations because of its effectiveness in reducing response bias commonly associated with the conventional Likert scale. Nonetheless, it is critical to recognize that the MFC test generates ipsative data, a type of measurement that has been criticized due to its limited applicability for comparing individuals. Multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) models have recently sparked renewed interest among academics and professionals. This is largely due to the development of several models that make it easier to collect normative data from forced-choice tests. The paper introduces a modeling framework made up of three key components: response format, measurement model, and decision theory. Under this paradigm, four IRT models were chosen as examples. Following that, a comprehensive study is carried out to compare and characterize the parameter estimation techniques used in MFC-IRT models. This work then examines empirical research on the concept by analyzing three distinct domains: parameter invariance testing, computerized adaptive testing (CAT), and validity investigation. Finally, it is recommended that future research initiatives follow four distinct paths: modeling, parameter invariance testing, forced-choice CAT, and validity studies.
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.