An Investigation of Agreement Between the Item Difficulty Coefficient Calculated in Accordance With Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory With Bland–Altman Method

References

• Acar, T. (2008). Determination of a differential item functioning (DIF) procedure using the hierarchical generalized linear model: A comparison study with logistic regression and likelihood ratio procedure (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Acar, T., Kelecioğlu, H. (2008). Genelleştirilmiş Aşamalı Doğrusal Model ile Rasch Modelinin Parametrelerinin Değişmezliğinin Karşılaştırılması, Paper presented at the meeting of the I. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology National Congress, Ankara University, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Anıl, D. (2008). The prediction of item parameters based on classical test theory and latent trait theory. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. J. Educ.), 34:01–11.
   Google Scholar
• Baykul, Y. (2000). Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i:307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland, J. M., Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:135–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braždžionytë, J., Macas, A. (2007). Bland-Altman analysis as an alternative approach for statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring hemodynamics during acute myocardial infarction. Medicina 43:208–214.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Çelen, Ü. (2008). Comparison of validity and reliability of two tests developed by classical test theory and item response theory. Elem. Educ. Online 7:758–768.
   Google Scholar
• Conelly, L.M. (2008). Bland-Altman plots. MEDSURG Nursing 17:175–176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Erdoğan, S., Kanık, E.A. (2005). Rasgele ve Sistematik Hataların Sınıf İçi ve Uyum Korelasyon Katsayıları ve Bland&Altman Yöntemi Üzerine Etkileri: Bir Simülasyon Çalışması, VIII. Ulusal Biyoistatistik Kongresi, VIII. Ulusal Biyoistatistik Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, sayfa:346–359, 20–22 Eylül, Bursa.
   Google Scholar
• Erktin, E. (1994). Ölçmede Yeni Yaklaşımlar: Örtük Özellikler Kuramı. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi 9:51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide Ölçme ve Ölçek Geliştirme-I, 1.baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical theory: an empirical comparison of their item-person statistic. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58:357–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelbal, S. (1994). p Madde Güçlük İndeksi ile Rasch Modelinin b Parametresi ve Bunlara Dayalı Yetenek Ölçüleri Üzerine Bir Karşılaştırma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 44:85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Genç, Y., Sertkaya, D., Demirtaş, S. (2003). Klinik Araştırmalarda İki Ölçüm Tekniğinin Uyumunu İncelemede Kullanılan İstatistiksel Yöntemler. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, Cilt 56, Sayı 44, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R.K., Jones, R.W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 12:38–47.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Princip1es and applications. Kluwer, Boston: Nijhoff Publishing a Member of the Kluwer Academic Publisher Group.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R.K., Swamınathan, H., Rogers, J.H. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Boston, MA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, C., Stamey, J. (2007). Using Bland-Altman to assess agreement between two medical devices – don't forget the confidence intervals!. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 21:331–333.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamata, A. (2002). Procedure to perform item response analysis by hierarchical generalized linear model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New Orleans.
   Google Scholar
• Kan, A. (2006). Klasik Test Teorisine ve Örtük Özellikler Teorisine Göre Kestirilen Madde Parametrelerinin Karsilastirilmasi Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalisma. Mersin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2:227–235.
   Google Scholar
• Kelecioğlu, H. (2001). Örtük özellikler teorisindeki b ve a parametreleri ile klasik test teorisindeki p ve r istatistikleri arasındaki ilişki. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 20:104–110.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, W. (2003). Development of a differential item functioning (dif) procedure using the hierarchical generalized linear model: a comparison study with logistic regression procedure (Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy). The Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C.-J. (2008). Comparisons between classical test theory and item response theory in automated assembly of parallel test forms. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. 6:1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Ludbrook, J. (2010). Confidence in Altman–Bland plots: A critical review of the method of differences. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 37:143–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özgüven, İ.E. (1994). Psikolojik Testler. Ankara: Yeni Doğuş Matbaası.
   Google Scholar
• Progar, S., Sočan, G. (2008). An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory. Psihološka obzorja/Horiz. Psychol. 17:5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Van Stralen, K.J., Jager, K.J., Zoccali, C., Dekker, F.W. (2008). Agreement between methods. Kidney Int. 74:1116–1120. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.306
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yıldırım, E.A., Kaşar, M., Güdük, M., Ateş, E., Küçükparlak, İ., Özalmete, E.O. (2011). Gözlerden Zihin Okuma Testi’nin Türkçe Güvenirlik Çalışması. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi 22:177–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar