Rating scales and Rasch measurement

References

• Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. The University of Chicago Press, IL, USA (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Rasch G. On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (IV). Neyman J (Ed.). University of California Press, CA, USA, 321–334 (1961).
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd Edition). The University of Chicago Press, IL, USA (1970).
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn TS. The Copernican Revolution. Harvard University Press, MA, USA (1957).
   Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL. Attitudes can be measured. Am. J. Sociol.33, 529–554 (1928).
   Google Scholar
• Reise SP. The impact of multidimensionality on unidimensional item response theory model parameters. Presented at: International Conference on Outcome Measurement. Bethesda, MD, USA, 1–3 September 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Choppin BHL. Lessons for psychometrics from thermometry. Eval. Educ.9, 9–12 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol.140, 5–55 (1932).
   Google Scholar
• Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Zajicek JP, Thompson AJ. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol.6, 1094–1105 (1970).
   Google Scholar
• Traub RE. Classical test theory in historical perspective. EM:IP16(4), 8–14 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Bock RD. A brief history of item response theory. EM:IP16(4), 21–33 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD. A history of social science measurement. EM:IP16(4), 33–45 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Cano S, Klassen AF, Scott A, Thoma A, Feeny D, Pusic A. Health outcome and economic measurement in breast cancer surgery: challenges and opportunities. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.10(5), 583–594 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med. Care42, 7–16 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie DA. Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (1981).
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton RK. Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Med. Care38(9 Suppl.), II60–II65 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock RD, Jones LV. The Measurement and Prediction of Judgement and Choice. Holden Day, CA, USA (1968).
   Google Scholar
• Divgi DR. Does the Rasch model really work for multiple choice items? Not if you look closely. J. Educ. Measure.23, 283–298 (1986).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thissen D, Steinberg L. A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika51, 567–577 (1986).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen EB. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika42, 69–81 (1977).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika43(4), 561–574 (1978).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. MESA Press, IL, USA (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Muraki E. A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Appl. Psychol. Measure.16(2), 159–176 (1992).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock RD. Estimating item parameters and latent proficiency when the responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika37, 29–51 (1972).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monographs34(17), 100–114 (1969).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (1925).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher RA. Two new properties of mathematical likelihood. Proc. Royal Soc. A144, 285–307 (1934).
   Google Scholar
• Guttman L. The principal components of scalable attitudes. In: Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences. Lazarsfeld PF (Ed.). The Free Press, IL, USA, 216–257 (1954).
   Google Scholar
• Raven JC. Matrix tests. Mental Health1, 10–18 (1940).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Lawrence Erbaum Associates, NJ, USA (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth B. Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner192, 540–542 (1964).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zajicek J, Fox P, Sanders H et al. Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis (CAMS study): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet362(8), 1517–1526 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, Sheridan, BS, Luo G. RUMM2030: a windows program for the analysis of data according to Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. RUMM Laboratory, Perth, Australia (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Educational measurement: Rasch models. In: International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd Edition). Baker E, Peterson P,McGaw B (Eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Andrich D. Understanding the response structure and process in the polytomous Rasch model. In: Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models: Developments and Applications. Nering M, Ostini R (Eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA, 123–152 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Dubois B, Burns JA. An analysis of the meaning of the question mark response category in attitude scales. Educ. Psychol. Measure.35, 869–884 (1975).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook KF. Bewildered, befuddled, be-tooled; a blue collar psychometrician’s defense of measurement models as tools: just tools. Presented at: International Conference on Outcomes Measurement. Bethesda, MD, USA, 1–3 September 2010.
   Google Scholar