Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41057741›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Applying Bayesian checks of cancellation axioms for interval scaling in limited samples.

Sanford R Student, Wyatt S Read

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sanford R StudentUniversity of Delaware School of Education, 113 Willard Hall Education Building, 16 West Main Street, Newark, DE, 19716, USA. srstu@udel.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7419-2437
Wyatt S ReadUniversity of Delaware School of Education, 113 Willard Hall Education Building, 16 West Main Street, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interval scales are frequently assumed in educational and psychological research involving latent variables, but are rarely verified. This paper outlines methods for investigating the interval scale assumption when fitting the Rasch model to item response data. We study a Bayesian method for evaluating an item response dataset's adherence to the cancellation axioms of additive conjoint measurement under the Rasch model, and compare the extent to which the axiom of double cancellation holds in the data at sample sizes of 250 and 1000 with varying test lengths, difficulty spreads, and levels of adherence to the Rasch model in the data-generating process. Because the statistic produced by the procedure is not directly interpretable as an indicator of whether an interval scale can be established, we develop and evaluate procedures for bootstrapping a null distribution of violation rates against which to compare results. At a sample size of 250, the method under investigation is not well powered to detect the violations of interval scaling that we simulate, but the procedure works quite consistently at N = 1000. That is, at moderate but achievable sample sizes, empirical tests for interval scaling are indeed possible.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSample SizeAdditive conjoint measurementInterval scaleItem Response TheoryLatent variable modelingRasch model

Identifiers

PMID41057741
PMCPMC12504388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.