Skip Navigation



Health Education Research Advance Access published online on July 31, 2006
Health Education Research, doi:10.1093/her/cyl053
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/suppl_1/i19    most recent
cyl053v2
cyl053v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Li, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Li, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received September 7, 2005
Accepted May 12, 2006

Original article

Improving measurement in behavioral sciences using item response models: comparison with the classical test theory approach

Mark Wilson 1 *, Diane D. Allen 1, and Jun Corser Li 1

1 Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mark Wilson, E-mail: markw{at}berkeley.edu


  Abstract

This paper compares the approach and resultant outcomes of item response models (IRMs) and classical test theory (CTT). First, it reviews basic ideas of CTT, and compares them to the ideas about using IRMs introduced in an earlier paper. It then applies a comparison scheme based on the AERA/APA/NCME ‘Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests’ to compare the two approaches under three general headings: (i) choosing a model; (ii) evidence for reliability--incorporating reliability coefficients and measurement error--and (iii) evidence for validity--including evidence based on instrument content, response processes, internal structure, other variables and consequences. An example analysis of a self-efficacy (SE) scale for exercise is used to illustrate these comparisons. The investigation found that there were (i) aspects of the techniques and outcomes that were similar between the two approaches, (ii) aspects where the item response modeling approach contributes to instrument construction and evaluation beyond the classical approach and (iii) aspects of the analysis where the measurement models had little to do with the analysis or outcomes. There were no aspects where the classical approach contributed to instrument construction or evaluation beyond what could be done with the IRM approach. Finally, properties of the SE scale are summarized and recommendations made.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
L. C. Masse, M. Wilson, T. Baranowski, and L. Nebeling
Improving psychometric methods in health education and health behavior research.
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i1 - i3.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
M. Wilson, D. D. Allen, and J. C. Li
Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: introducing item response modeling
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i4 - i18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
K. Heesch, L. Masse, and A. Dunn
Using Rasch modeling to re-evaluate three scales related to physical activity: enjoyment, perceived benefits and perceived barriers
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i58 - i72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
D. D. Allen and M. Wilson
Introducing multidimensional item response modeling in health behavior and health education research
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i73 - i84.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
K. Watson, T. Baranowski, and D. Thompson
Item response modeling: an evaluation of the children's fruit and vegetable self-efficacy questionnaire
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i47 - i57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
K. Watson, T. Baranowski, D. Thompson, R. Jago, J. Baranowski, and L. M. Klesges
Innovative application of a multidimensional item response model in assessing the influence of social desirability on the pseudo-relationship between self-efficacy and behavior
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i85 - i97.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
A. L. Dunn, K. Resnicow, and L. M. Klesges
Improving measurement methods for behavior change interventions: opportunities for innovation
Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2006; 21(suppl_1): i121 - i124.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.