| _version_ |
1860797314691497984
|
| building |
INTELEK Repository
|
| collection |
Online Access
|
| collectionurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072
|
| date |
2024-08-26 20:14:24
|
| format |
Restricted Document
|
| id |
12209
|
| institution |
UniSZA
|
| internalnotes |
Abedalaziz,N.,C.H.Leng, 2013.The Relationship between CTT and IRT Approaches in Analysing Item Characteristics.The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1). Adedoyin, O.O., 2010. Investigating the Invariance of Person Parameter Estimates Based on Classical Test and Item Response Theories. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2): 107-113. Adedoyin, O.O., J.Adedoyin, 2013.Assessing the comparability between classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) models in estimating test item parameters.Herald Journal of Education and General Studies, 2(3): 107-114. Baker, F.B., 2001.The Basic of Item Response Theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, USA. Baker, F.B., S.H. Kim, 2004.Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nded.). New York: Marcel Dekker. Bechger, T.M., G.Maris, H.H.Verstralen, A.A.Béguin, 2003.Using classical test theory in combination with item response theory.Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(5): 319-334. Cook, L.L., DR.Eignor, HL.Taft, 1988. A comparative study of the effects of recency of instruction on the stability of IRT and conventional item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25: 31-45. Courville, T.G., 2004. An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory item/person statistics.Ph.D Dissertation, Texas A & M University. Crocker, L., J.Algina, 1986.Introduction to classical and modern test theory.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Erguven, M., 2014. Two approaches to psychometric process: Classical test theory and item response theory. Journal of Education, 2(2): 23-30. Fan, X., 1998.Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An Empirical Comparison of Their Item/Person Statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3): 357-381. Güler, N., G.K.Uyanık, G.T.Teker, 2014.Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in terms of item parameters.European Journal of Research on Education, 2(1): 1-6. Hambleton, R.K., H.Swaminathan, 1985.Item response theory: Principles and applications (Vol. 7): Springer. Hambleton, R.K., R.W. Jones, 1993.Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3):3847. Idowu, E.O., A.N.Eluwa, B.K.Abang, 2011. Evaluation of Mathematics Achievement Test: A Comparison Between Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) Journal of Educational and Social Research,1(4):99-106. Kinsey, T.L., 2003.A comparison of IRT and RASCH procedures in a mixed-item format test: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of North Texas. Lawson, S., 1991. One Parameter latent trait measurement: Do the results justify the effort?. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in educational research: Substantive findings, methodological developments,1: 159-168. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lord, F.M., 1980.Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MacDonald, P., S.Paunonen, 2002. A Monte Carlo Comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62: 921-943. Magis, D., 2007. Influence, Information and Item Response Theory in Discrete Data Analysis.Retrieved on 3 June, 2014 fromhttp://bictel.ulg.ac.be/ETDdb/collection/available/ULgetd-06122007-100147/. Magno, C., 2009. Demonstrating the Difference between Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory using Derived Test Data.The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1): 1-11. Mead, A.D., AW.Meade, 2010.Item selection using CTT and IRT with unrepresentative samples.Paper presented at the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Atlanta, GA. Nenty, H., O.O.Adedoyin, 2013.Test for invariance: inter and intra model validation of classical test and item response theories. Asia PacificJournal of Research,I(IX). Ojerinde, D., 2013. Classical test theory (CTT) VS item response theory (IRT): An evaluation of the comparability of item analysis results. A guest lecture presented at the Institute of Education, University of Ibadanon 23rd May. Ojerinde, D., K.Popoola, P.Onyeneho, 2012. A comparison between classical test theory and item response theory: experience from 2011 pre-test in the use of English language paper of the unified tertiary matriculation examination (UTME).Journal of educational assessment in Africa, 7: 173-191. Pido, S., 2012.Comparison of item analysis results obtained using item response theory and classical test theory approaches. Journal of educational assessment in Africa, 7: 192-209. Progar, S., G.Socan, M.Slovejija, 2008.An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory.Horizons of Psychology, 17(3): 5-24. Sohn Y., 2009.A Comparison of Methods for Item Analysis and DIF using Classical Test Theory, Item Response Theory and Generalized Linear Model. M.Ed Thesis, University of Georgia. Zaman, A., A.U.R. Kashmiri, M.Mubarak, A.Ali, 2008. Students Ranking, Based on their Abilities on Objective Type Test: Comparison of CTT and IRT. Retrieved on 23 April, 2014 from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051 &context=ceducom
|
| originalfilename |
6509-01-FH02-FKI-15-03610.pdf
|
| person |
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042
|
| recordtype |
oai_dc
|
| resourceurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12209
|
| spelling |
12209 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12209 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072 Restricted Document Article Journal application/pdf Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20 Paper Capture Plug-in with ClearScan 9 1.6 Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042 2024-08-26 20:14:24 6509-01-FH02-FKI-15-03610.pdf UniSZA Private Access Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences Background: The practice of testing has become increasingly common and the reliance on information gained from test scores to make decision has made an indelible mark on our culture. The entire educational system is today highly concerned with the design and development of the tests, the procedures of testing, instruments for measuring data, and the methodology to understand and evaluate the results. In theory of measurement in education and psychology there are two competing measurement frameworks, namely Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). The techniques of the two frameworks are applied in assessment situations to improve test analysis and test refinement procedures. Objective: The main purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of relevant empirical studies conducted to compare the two theories in test development. Results: Findings reveals that CTT and IRT are highly comparable; however, no study provides enough empirical evidence on the extent of disparity between the two frameworks and the superiority of IRT over CTT despite the theoretical differences. Conclusion: the inability of these empirical studies to provide enough evidence of superiority of the IRT over CTT may result from the instruments they used in conducting the studies. It is recommended that further studies be conducted with different tools to further explore the true picture of the framework and provide enough evidences to justify or prove the theoretical stands of the two frameworks in the field of educational and psychological measurement. 9 7 549-556 Abedalaziz,N.,C.H.Leng, 2013.The Relationship between CTT and IRT Approaches in Analysing Item Characteristics.The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1). Adedoyin, O.O., 2010. Investigating the Invariance of Person Parameter Estimates Based on Classical Test and Item Response Theories. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2): 107-113. Adedoyin, O.O., J.Adedoyin, 2013.Assessing the comparability between classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) models in estimating test item parameters.Herald Journal of Education and General Studies, 2(3): 107-114. Baker, F.B., 2001.The Basic of Item Response Theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, USA. Baker, F.B., S.H. Kim, 2004.Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nded.). New York: Marcel Dekker. Bechger, T.M., G.Maris, H.H.Verstralen, A.A.Béguin, 2003.Using classical test theory in combination with item response theory.Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(5): 319-334. Cook, L.L., DR.Eignor, HL.Taft, 1988. A comparative study of the effects of recency of instruction on the stability of IRT and conventional item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25: 31-45. Courville, T.G., 2004. An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory item/person statistics.Ph.D Dissertation, Texas A & M University. Crocker, L., J.Algina, 1986.Introduction to classical and modern test theory.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Erguven, M., 2014. Two approaches to psychometric process: Classical test theory and item response theory. Journal of Education, 2(2): 23-30. Fan, X., 1998.Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An Empirical Comparison of Their Item/Person Statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3): 357-381. Güler, N., G.K.Uyanık, G.T.Teker, 2014.Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in terms of item parameters.European Journal of Research on Education, 2(1): 1-6. Hambleton, R.K., H.Swaminathan, 1985.Item response theory: Principles and applications (Vol. 7): Springer. Hambleton, R.K., R.W. Jones, 1993.Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3):3847. Idowu, E.O., A.N.Eluwa, B.K.Abang, 2011. Evaluation of Mathematics Achievement Test: A Comparison Between Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) Journal of Educational and Social Research,1(4):99-106. Kinsey, T.L., 2003.A comparison of IRT and RASCH procedures in a mixed-item format test: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of North Texas. Lawson, S., 1991. One Parameter latent trait measurement: Do the results justify the effort?. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in educational research: Substantive findings, methodological developments,1: 159-168. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lord, F.M., 1980.Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. MacDonald, P., S.Paunonen, 2002. A Monte Carlo Comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62: 921-943. Magis, D., 2007. Influence, Information and Item Response Theory in Discrete Data Analysis.Retrieved on 3 June, 2014 fromhttp://bictel.ulg.ac.be/ETDdb/collection/available/ULgetd-06122007-100147/. Magno, C., 2009. Demonstrating the Difference between Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory using Derived Test Data.The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1): 1-11. Mead, A.D., AW.Meade, 2010.Item selection using CTT and IRT with unrepresentative samples.Paper presented at the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Atlanta, GA. Nenty, H., O.O.Adedoyin, 2013.Test for invariance: inter and intra model validation of classical test and item response theories. Asia PacificJournal of Research,I(IX). Ojerinde, D., 2013. Classical test theory (CTT) VS item response theory (IRT): An evaluation of the comparability of item analysis results. A guest lecture presented at the Institute of Education, University of Ibadanon 23rd May. Ojerinde, D., K.Popoola, P.Onyeneho, 2012. A comparison between classical test theory and item response theory: experience from 2011 pre-test in the use of English language paper of the unified tertiary matriculation examination (UTME).Journal of educational assessment in Africa, 7: 173-191. Pido, S., 2012.Comparison of item analysis results obtained using item response theory and classical test theory approaches. Journal of educational assessment in Africa, 7: 192-209. Progar, S., G.Socan, M.Slovejija, 2008.An empirical comparison of item response theory and classical test theory.Horizons of Psychology, 17(3): 5-24. Sohn Y., 2009.A Comparison of Methods for Item Analysis and DIF using Classical Test Theory, Item Response Theory and Generalized Linear Model. M.Ed Thesis, University of Georgia. Zaman, A., A.U.R. Kashmiri, M.Mubarak, A.Ali, 2008. Students Ranking, Based on their Abilities on Objective Type Test: Comparison of CTT and IRT. Retrieved on 23 April, 2014 from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051 &context=ceducom
|
| spellingShingle |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| summary |
Background: The practice of testing has become increasingly common and the reliance on information gained from test scores to make decision has made an indelible mark on our culture. The entire educational system is today highly concerned with the design and development of the tests, the procedures of testing, instruments for measuring data, and the methodology to understand and evaluate the results. In theory of measurement in education and psychology there are two competing measurement frameworks, namely Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). The techniques of the two frameworks are applied in assessment situations to improve test analysis and test refinement procedures. Objective: The main purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of relevant empirical studies conducted to compare the two theories in test development. Results: Findings reveals that CTT and IRT are highly comparable; however, no study provides enough empirical evidence on the extent of disparity between the two frameworks and the superiority of IRT over CTT despite the theoretical differences. Conclusion: the inability of these empirical studies to provide enough evidence of superiority of the IRT over CTT may result from the instruments they used in conducting the studies. It is recommended that further studies be conducted with different tools to further explore the true picture of the framework and provide enough evidences to justify or prove the theoretical stands of the two frameworks in the field of educational and psychological measurement.
|
| title |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| title_full |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| title_fullStr |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| title_short |
Comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory:A Review of Empirical Studies
|
| title_sort |
comparison of classical test theory and item response theory:a review of empirical studies
|