Comparison of statistical models for individual’s ability index and ranking

References

• Ackerman, T. A. (1991). Reviewed work(s): Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. by Frank B. Baker. Source: Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(422), 440.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, R., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: An application of the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46(4), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, R., & Lieberman, M. (1970). Fitting a response model for n dichotomously scored items. Psychometrika, 35(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantrell, C. E. (1999). Item response theory: Understanding the one-parameter rasch model. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 5, pp. 171–192). JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coggins, J. V., Kim, J. K., & Briggs, L. C. (2017). Comparison of IRT and CTT using secondary school Reading comprehension assessments. Research in the Schools, 24(1), 80–93.
   Google Scholar
• Courville, T. (2004). An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory item/Person statistics [PhD thesis]. A & M University: Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fan, X. (1998). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurem, 58(3), 357–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105–146). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Haertel, E. H. (2006). Reliability. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 65–110). American Council on Education and Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Henson, R. (1999). Understanding the one-parameter Rasch model of item response theory [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 078).
   Google Scholar
• Holland, P. W., & Hoskens, M. (2003). Classical test theory as a firstorder item response theory: Application to true-score prediction from a possibly nonparallel test. Psychometrika, 68(1), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Z., Lin, L., Wang, Y., & Li, J. (2021). The integration of classical testing theory and item response theory. Psychology (savannah, Ga ), 12(9), 1397–1409.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., & Feldt, L. S. (2010). The estimation of the IRT reliability coefficient and its lower and upper bounds, with comparisons to CTT reliability statistics. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9062-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawley, D. (1943). On problems connected with item selection and test construction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 61(3), 273–287.
   Google Scholar
• Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. (1952). A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monograph (7). Psychometric Society.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1980a). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1980b). Applications of item response theory to practical testing applications. Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, P., & Paunonen, S. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(6), 921–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402238082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patz, R. J., & Junker, B. W. (1999). Applications and extensions of MCMC in IRT: Multiple item types, missing data, and rated responses. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(4), 342–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Progar, Š, Sočan, G., & Peč, M. (2008). An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory. Horizons of Psychology, 17(3), 5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Sébille, V., Hardouin, J. B., Le Néel, T., Kubis, G., Boyer, F., Guillemin, F., & Falissard, B. (2010). Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)-based approaches for the comparison of patient-reported outcomes in two groups of patients-a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheng, Y. (2005). Bayesian analysis of hierarchical IRT models: Comparing and combining the unidimensional & multi-unidimensional IRT models [PhD thesis]. University of Missouri: Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Sheng, Y. (2008). Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of normal ogive IRT models in MATLAB. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(8). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i08
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvestre-Tipay, J. L. (2009). Item response theory and classical test theory: An empirical comparison of item/Person statistics in a biological science test. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 19–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sotaridona, L. S., Pornel, J. B., & Vallejo, A. (2003). Some applications of item response theory to testing. The Philippine Statistician, 52(1–4), 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Stage, C. (1999). A comparison between item analysis based on item response theory and classical test theory: A study of the SweSAT test READ. (Educational Measurement No31). Umea University.
   Google Scholar
• Stage, F. K., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have To say? ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 26, No. 4. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 630, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Steyer, R., Smelser, N. J., & Jena, D. (2001). Classical (psychometric) test theory. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Logic of inquiry and research design (pp. 1955–1962). Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaet Jena.
   Google Scholar
• Subali, B., & Aminah, N. S. (2021). The comparison of item test characteristics viewed from classic and modern test theory. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14139a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R., & Cyr, A. (2002). Applying item response theory methods to complex survey data. SSC Annual Meeting: Proceedings of the Survey Methods Section.
   Google Scholar
• Tsutakawa, R. K., & Soltys, M. J. (1988). Approximation for Bayesian ability estimation. Journal of Educational Statistics, 13(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986013002117
   Google Scholar
• Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Wang, X. (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiberg, M. (2004). Classical test theory vs item response theory: An evaluation of the theory test in the Swedish driving-license test. Working paper: EM No 50, UMEA University.
   Google Scholar
• Zaman, A., Kashmiri, A. U. R., Mubarak, M., & Ali, A. (2008). Students ranking, based on their abilities on objective type test: Comparison of CTT and IRT.
   Google Scholar