Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research.

The three major approaches to personality scale construction, the external, inductive, and deductive strategies, are discussed and their rationales compared. It is suggested that all scales should possess validity, communicability, and economy. The relative importance of these characteristics, however, varies with the purpose for which the instrument is being constructed. A review of more than a dozen comparative studies revealed no consistent superiority of any strategy in terms of validity or predictive effectiveness. But deductive scales normally communicate information more directly to an assessor, and they are definitely more economical to build and to administer. Thus, wherever there is a genuine choice, the simple deductive approach is recommended. Furthermore, self-rating scales narrowly but consistently outdo questionnaire scales in terms of validity and are clearly superior in terms of communicability and economy. There may not be many situations in which the widespread preference for questionnaires is justified. It is concluded that the more commonsensical approaches to personality measurement have a lot to offer. Anyone who is bold enough today to develop a general-purpose personality inventory has basically three options for how to go about it. They are the external approach (also called "empirical," or "criterion group"), the inductive approach (also called "internal," "internal consistency," or "itemetric"), and the deductive approach (also called "rational," "intuitive," or "theoretical"). This article reviews their respective merits on both a priori and empirical grounds. For clarity's sake I will exaggerate the differences between the philosophies associated with these three approaches.

Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits.

Item bias and item response theory

Self-twist plural yarn strands are produced by a system wherein at least two singles yarn strands are individually twisted to form twisted strands each having longitudinally spaced nodes, and strands are brought together in a parallel relationship with the nodes of one strand substantially aligned with the nodes of each other strand. The corresponding nodes from one strand are fastened to those of each other strand, and the strands are allowed to ply. The node fastening means comprises a rotating member having a contact surface for fastening the nodes by gathering and twisting of the fibers from one strand with those of another strand at the nodes of each respective strand. Ply yarn twist uniformity is assured through the use of improved twist insertion jets, together with a means for holding singles yarns separate to allow longitudinal levelling of singles yarn torque prior to plying.

Vocational Interests of Men and Women

Two strategies for assessing item bias are discussed: Methods based on Itemx Group interaction and methods that compare the probabilities of a correct response for different groups conditional on ability level In latent trait models, correct response probabilties are compared conditional on latent ability; inScheuneman’s (1979) method these probabilities are compared conditional on the observed test score Scheuneman’s method is modified to fit the general theory of loglinear and logit models for contingency tables A distinction is made between uniform and nonuniform item bias, and a method to assess item bias and distinguish between uniform and nonuniform bias is described Data reported by Scheuneman are used to demonstrate the method in detail; the differences obtained with Scheuneman’s method are discussed In addition, the method is applied to two tests administered byvan der Flier (1980) in Kenya and Tanzania, and the results are compared to those obtained with Scheuneman’s approach

Contingency Table Models for Assessing Item Bias

Lord and Novick (1968) have stated that the general problem of obtaining the maximum amount of information from a given set of items contains three major components. The first of these is the measurement procedure, or the manner in which the examinees respond to the items. The second component is the specification of an item scoring rule or formula that is used for each item. The final component is the combination of the item scores into a total score by an item weighting formula. The first two components comprise much of the subject of confidence testing. Confidence testing is a method of testing where weights are assigned directly or indirectly to item responses in such a way as to reflect the examinee's belief in the correctness of the alternative or alternatives so marked. One author (Jacobs, 1971) has made a distinction between confidence weighting procedures and probabilistic testing. This paper considers these two procedures as categories of the more general subject of confidence testing. The purpose of this paper is to describe the various forms of confidence testing as they have been developed and to provide a brief evaluation of these forms. Some of the problems associated with confidence testing are discussed with the relevant studies cited. In the usual multiple-choice test, an examinee is given a question along with a number of possible answers to that question. He is then asked to choose an answer from those given and to indicate that choice on an answer sheet. If he chooses the correct answer, he receives a score of one; if he omits the item, he gets a score of zero; and if he guesses incorrectly or is misinformed as to the correct answer, he receives a score less than or equal to zero, as with the commonly used formula score. The total test score is then taken as the sum of the item scores. This type of testing has the advantages of efficiency and simplicity for both the examinee and the test scorer. More items can be administered in a given period of time using this method than by any other method requiring a more complicated response, and the cost for scoring the test is also less. Advocates of confidence testing have stated that knowledge is neither a dichotomous nor a trichotomous affair, which conventional

/pdf/the-use-of-confidence-testing-in-objective-tests-7zoh3lcttg.pdf

The Use of Confidence Testing In Objective Tests

Confidence testing has been used in varying forms over the past 40 years as a method for increasing the amount of information available from objective test items. This paper traces the development of the procedure from Hevner's beginning method up to the various methods in use today and describes both the testing procedures and scoring methods used. The term confidence testing is applied to both probabilistic testing and confidence weighting procedures. Various procedures are presented and their relationship with personality factors discussed.

The use of confidence testing in objective tests

This study compares various item option scoring methods with respect to coefficient alpha and a concurrent validity coefficient. The scoring methods under consideration were: (1) formula scoring, (2) a priori scoring, (3) empirical scoring with an internal criterion, and (4) two modifications of formula scoring. The study indicates a clear superiority of the empirically determined scoring system with respect to both coefficient alpha and the concurrent validity.

Reliability and Validity of Item Option Weighting Schemes

The problem of test bias has been a growing concern in recent years. Of the several available methods for determining test bias, probably the most effective means involves collecting criterion information. This data collection process often provides a considable barrier to the researcher, especially for the small test user and for someone who needs an immediate solution to a test bias question. This paper presents a method for identifying and analyzing the nature of test bias. This method is intended as only a preliminary analysis prior to, or concurrently to, a criterion data collection process.

A Quick Method for Determining Test Bias

The problem of test bias has been a growing concern in recent years. Of the several available methods for determining test bias, probably the most effective means involves collecting criterion information. This data collection process often provides a considerable barrier to the researcher, especially for the small test user and for someone who needs an immediate solution to a test bias question. This paper presents a method for identifying and analyzing the nature of test bias. This method is intended as only a preliminary analysis prior to, or concurrently to, a criterion data collection process.

/pdf/a-quick-method-for-determining-test-bias-4lsn2zo5vg.pdf

Gary Echternacht

Papers

The Use of Confidence Testing In Objective Tests

The use of confidence testing in objective tests

Reliability and Validity of Item Option Weighting Schemes

A Quick Method for Determining Test Bias

A quick method for determining test bias