Author
Paul De Boeck
Other affiliations: Catholic University of Leuven, University of Amsterdam, Centre national de la recherche scientifique ...read more
Bio: Paul De Boeck is an academic researcher from Ohio State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Item response theory & Differential item functioning. The author has an hindex of 45, co-authored 209 publications receiving 9517 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul De Boeck include Catholic University of Leuven & University of Amsterdam.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Southern California1, Duke University2, Stockholm School of Economics3, Center for Open Science4, University of Virginia5, University of Amsterdam6, University of Pennsylvania7, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill8, University of Regensburg9, California Institute of Technology10, Research Institute of Industrial Economics11, New York University12, Cardiff University13, Northwestern University14, Mathematica Policy Research15, Ohio State University16, University of Sussex17, Texas A&M University18, Royal Holloway, University of London19, University of Zurich20, University of Melbourne21, University of Wisconsin-Madison22, University of Michigan23, Stanford University24, Rutgers University25, Columbia University26, University of Washington27, University of Edinburgh28, National University of Singapore29, Utrecht University30, Arizona State University31, Princeton University32, University of California, Los Angeles33, Imperial College London34, University of Innsbruck35, Harvard University36, University of Chicago37, University of Pittsburgh38, University of Notre Dame39, University of California, Berkeley40, Johns Hopkins University41, University of Bristol42, University of New South Wales43, Dartmouth College44, Whitman College45, University of Puerto Rico46, University of Milan47, University of California, Irvine48, Paris Dauphine University49, University of British Columbia50, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich51, Purdue University52, Washington University in St. Louis53, University of California, Davis54, Microsoft55
TL;DR: The default P-value threshold for statistical significance is proposed to be changed from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries in order to reduce uncertainty in the number of discoveries.
Abstract: We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries.
1,586 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: This article proposed to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance for claims of new discoveries from 0.05 to 0.005, which is the threshold used in this paper.
Abstract: We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance for claims of new discoveries from 0.05 to 0.005.
1,415 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: In this article, a framework for item response models is presented, and a generalized (non-linear) mixed model for polytomous data is presented. But it does not address the problem of item response modeling.
Abstract: 1 A framework for item response models.- 2 Descriptive and explanatory item response models.- 3 Models for polytomous data.- 4 An Introduction to (Generalized (Non)Linear Mixed Models.- 5 Person regression models.- 6 Models with item and item group predictors.- 7 Person-by-item predictors.- 8 Multiple person dimensions and latent item predictors.- 9 Latent item predictors with fixed effects.- 10 Models for residual dependencies.- 11 Mixture Models.- 12 Estimation and software.- Afterword.
602 citations
TL;DR: The results showed that other accountability and arrogant entitlement, as an instance of unfairness, are specific appraisals ability for anger; and most important, none of the components is necessary or sufficient for anger.
Abstract: University of LeuvenThe nature of the association between anger and 5 appraisal–action tendency com-ponents—goal obstacle, other accountability, unfairness, control, and antago-nism—was examined in terms of specificity, necessity, and sufficiency. In 2 stud-ies, participants described recently experienced unpleasant situations in which 1 ofthe appraisal–action tendency components was present or absent and indicatedwhich emotions they had experienced. The results showed that (a) other account-ability and arrogant entitlement, as an instance of unfairness, are specific appraisalsfor anger; and most important, (b) none of the components is necessary or sufficientfor anger. The findings suggest that the relation between emotions and appraisal–action tendency components should be conceptualized instead as a contingent as-sociation, meaning that they usually co-occur.
249 citations
TL;DR: Gray as discussed by the authors proposed two systems that underlie much of our behaviour and personality, one relates to avoidance or withdrawal behaviour, called the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), wherea...
Abstract: Gray (1987) proposed two systems that underlie much of our behaviour and personality. One system relates to avoidance or withdrawal behaviour, called the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), wherea...
238 citations
Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: The Big Five taxonomy as discussed by the authors is a taxonomy of personality dimensions derived from analyses of the natural language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others, and it has been used for personality assessment.
Abstract: 2 Taxonomy is always a contentious issue because the world does not come to us in neat little packages (S. Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behavior and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Researchers, as well as practitioners in the field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from which to choose, with little guidance and no overall rationale at hand. What made matters worse was that scales with the same name often measure concepts that are not the same, and scales with different names often measure concepts that are quite similar. Although diversity and scientific pluralism are useful, the systematic accumulation of findings and the communication among researchers became difficult amidst the Babel of concepts and scales. Many personality researchers had hoped that they might devise the structure that would transform the Babel into a community speaking a common language. However, such an integration was not to be achieved by any one researcher or by any one theoretical perspective. As Allport once put it, " each assessor has his own pet units and uses a pet battery of diagnostic devices " (1958, p. 258). What personality psychology needed was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a generally accepted taxonomy would greatly facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the " Big Five " personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves 3 and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality …
7,787 citations
TL;DR: This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences.
Abstract: This personal historical article traces the development of the Big-Five factor structure, whose growing acceptance by personality researchers has profoundly influenced the scientific study of individual differences. The roots of this taxonomy lie in the lexical hypothesis and the insights of Sir Francis Galton, the prescience of L. L. Thurstone, the legacy of Raymond B. Cattell, and the seminal analyses of Tupes and Christal. Paradoxically, the present popularity of this model owes much to its many critics, each of whom tried to replace it, but failed. In reaction, there have been a number of attempts to assimilate other models into the five-factor structure. Lately, some practical implications of the emerging consensus can be seen in such contexts as personnel selection and classification.
4,025 citations
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: For example, Standardi pružaju okvir koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima.
Abstract: Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.
3,905 citations
01 Jan 1991
3,388 citations