NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing 2,431 to 2,445 of 5,169 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Jackson, Douglas N. – Psychological Review, 1971
Descriptors: Item Analysis, Personality Measures, Psychometrics, Statistical Analysis
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Pugh, Richard C. – Journal of Experimental Education, 1971
Descriptors: Attitude Measures, Item Analysis, Sampling, Statistical Studies
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Munz, D. C.; Jacobs, P. D. – British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971
Descriptors: Anxiety, Educational Testing, Item Analysis, Test Construction
Shoemaker, David M. – J Educ Meas, 1970
Descriptors: Item Analysis, Multiple Choice Tests, Test Results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Barker, Harry R.; Fowler, Raymond D. – Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1971
Descriptors: Factor Analysis, Item Analysis, Rating Scales, Tests
Orlinsky, David E.; and others – J Clin Psychol, 1970
Analyses of reports of patients' problematic concerns indicated, among other things, that patients and therapists generally agreed when concerns were present or absent in therapy session, but differed in interpretive emphasis. (CK)
Descriptors: Attitudes, Item Analysis, Patients, Problem Solving
Dillman, Caroline M.; Rahmlow, Harold F. – NSPI Journal, 1970
Descriptors: Educational Objectives, Evaluation Methods, Item Analysis, Tests
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Wolfe, John H. – Psychometrika, 1981
In tailored testing, it is important to determine the optimal difficulty of the next item to be presented to the examinee. It is shown that the difference that maximizes information for the three-parameter normal ogive response model is greater than the optimal difference for the three-parameter logistic model. (Author/JKS)
Descriptors: Item Analysis, Latent Trait Theory, Measurement Techniques
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Aiken, Lewis R. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1979
The dependence of item discrimination index (D) on item difficulty index (p), and the relationship of D and p to the phi coefficient are delineated. A table of critical values of D significant at the .10 and .05 levels, with p ranging from .10 to .90, is presented. (Author/CTM)
Descriptors: Correlation, Item Analysis, Statistical Significance, Tables (Data)
Bloom, Howard; Zhu, Pei; Jacob, Robin; Raudenbush, Stephen; Martinez, Andres; Lin, Fen – MDRC, 2008
This paper provides practical guidance for researchers who are designing studies that randomize groups to measure the impacts of interventions on children. To do so, the paper: (1) provides new empirical information about the values of parameters that influence the precision of impact estimates (intra-class correlations and R-squares); (2)…
Descriptors: Pilot Projects, Research Methodology, Intervention, Sampling
McGlynn, Angela Provitera – Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 2008
A new report, "The Proficiency Illusion," released last year by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute states that the tests that states use to measure academic progress under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are creating a false impression of success, especially in reading and especially in the early grades. The report is a collaboration…
Descriptors: Federal Legislation, Academic Achievement, Rating Scales, Achievement Tests
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Allalouf, Avi; Abramzon, Andrea – Language Assessment Quarterly, 2008
Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis can be used to great advantage in second language (L2) assessments. This study examined the differences in performance on L2 test items between groups from different first language backgrounds and suggested ways of improving L2 assessments. The study examined DIF on L2 (Hebrew) test items for two…
Descriptors: Test Items, Test Format, Second Language Learning, Test Construction
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Donnellan, M. Brent – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2008
The properties of the achievement goal inventories developed by Grant and Dweck (2003) and Elliot and McGregor (2001) were evaluated in two studies with a total of 780 participants. A four-factor specification for the Grant and Dweck inventory did not closely replicate results published in their original report. In contrast, the structure of the…
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Psychometrics, Program Validation, Achievement Rating
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Kim, Do-Hong; Huynh, Huynh – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2008
The current study compared student performance between paper-and-pencil testing (PPT) and computer-based testing (CBT) on a large-scale statewide end-of-course English examination. Analyses were conducted at both the item and test levels. The overall results suggest that scores obtained from PPT and CBT were comparable. However, at the content…
Descriptors: Reading Comprehension, Computer Assisted Testing, Factor Analysis, Comparative Testing
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Van Petegem, Peter; Deneire, Alexia; De Maeyer, Sven – Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2008
This paper describes the validation of a self-evaluation instrument for teachers in secondary education to solicit feedback from their pupils regarding specific aspects of the teacher's practice in class. This 92-item instrument--Teachers Learn from Pupils-Secondary Education (TLP-SE)--assesses 10 relevant classroom environment dimensions:…
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Foreign Countries, Psychometrics, Classroom Environment
Pages: 1  |  ...  |  159  |  160  |  161  |  162  |  163  |  164  |  165  |  166  |  167  |  ...  |  345