期刊文献+

适用于多维迫选测验的IRT计分模型 被引量:1

IRT-based scoring methods for multidimensional forced choice tests
下载PDF
导出
摘要 迫选(forced-choice,FC)测验由于可以控制传统李克特方法带来的反应偏差,被广泛应用于非认知测验中,而迫选测验的传统计分方式会产生自模式数据,这种数据由于不适合于个体间的比较,一直备受批评。近年来,多种迫选IRT模型的发展使研究者能够从迫选测验中获得接近常模性的数据,再次引起了研究者与实践人员对迫选IRT模型的兴趣。首先,依据所采纳的决策模型和题目反应模型对6种较为主流的迫选IRT模型进行分类和介绍。然后,从模型构建思路、参数估计方法两个角度对各模型进行比较与总结。其次,从参数不变性检验、计算机化自适应测验(computerized adaptive testing, CAT)和效度研究3个应用研究方面进行述评。最后提出未来研究可以在模型拓展、参数不变性检验、迫选CAT测验和效度研究4个方向深入。 Forced-choice(FC) test is widely used in non-cognitive tests because it can control the response bias caused by the traditional Likert method, while traditional scoring of forced-choice test produces ipsative data that has been criticized for being unsuitable for inter-individual comparisons. In recent years,the development of multiple forced-choice IRT models that allow researchers to obtain normative information from forced-choice test has re-ignited the interest of researchers and practitioners in forced-choice IRT models. First, the six prevailing forced-choice IRT models are classified and introduced according to the adopted decision models and item response models. Then, the models are compared and summarized from two perspectives: model construction ideology and parameter estimation methods. Next, it reviews the applied research of the model in three aspects: parameter invariance testing, computerized adaptive testing(CAT) and validity study. Finally, it is suggested that future research can move forward in four directions: model expansion, parameter invariance testing, forced-choice CAT, and validity research.
作者 刘娟 郑蝉金 李云川 连旭 LIU Juan;ZHENG Chanjin;LI Yunchuan;LIAN Xu(Beijing Insight Online Management Consulting Co.,Ltd.,Beijing 100102,China;Department of Educational Psychology,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China;Shanghai Institute of Artificial Intelligence for Education,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China)
出处 《心理科学进展》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2022年第6期1410-1428,共19页 Advances in Psychological Science
关键词 迫选测验 自模式数据 TIRT MUPP GGUM-RANK forced choice test ipsative data TIRT MUPP GGUM-RANK
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献56

  • 1Nederhof A J. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1985, 15 : 263 - 280.
  • 2Ellingson J E, Sackett P R, Hough L M. Social desirability corrections in personality measurement : Issues of applicant comparison and construct validity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84:155 - 166.
  • 3Goffin R D, Christiansen N D. Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,2003,11(! ) :340- 344.
  • 4Anderson C D, Warner J L, Spencer C C. Inflation bias in selfassessment examinations: Implications for valid employee selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984,69:574 - 580.
  • 5Zickar M J, Drasgow F. Detecting faking using appropriateness measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1996, 20:71 - 87.
  • 6Ferrendo P J, Chico E. Detecting dissimulation in personality test scores: A comparison between person- fit indices and detection scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2001,61 : 997- 1012.
  • 7Ziekar M J, Gibby R E, Robie C. Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent,and experimental data sets: An application of mixed - model Item Response Theory. Organizational Research Methods,2004,7(2) : 168 - 190.
  • 8Bowen C, Martin B A, Hunt S T. A comparison of ipsative and normative approaches for ability to control faking in personality questionnaires. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2002,10(3):240-260.
  • 9Baron H. Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 1996,69( 1 ) : 49 - 57.
  • 10Dwight S A, Donovan J J. Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 2003,16( 1 ) : 1 - 23.

共引文献23

同被引文献3

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部