↓ Skip to main content

Using Procedure Based on Item Response Theory to Evaluate Classification Consistency Indices in the Practice of Large-Scale Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Procedure Based on Item Response Theory to Evaluate Classification Consistency Indices in the Practice of Large-Scale Assessment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01676
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanshan Zhang, Jiaxuan Du, Ping Chen, Tao Xin, Fu Chen

Abstract

In spite of the growing interest in the methods of evaluating the classification consistency (CC) indices, only few researches are available in the field of applying these methods in the practice of large-scale educational assessment. In addition, only few studies considered the influence of practical factors, for example, the examinee ability distribution, the cut score location and the score scale, on the performance of CC indices. Using the newly developed Lee's procedure based on the item response theory (IRT), the main purpose of this study is to investigate the performance of CC indices when practical factors are taken into consideration. A simulation study and an empirical study were conducted under comprehensive conditions. Results suggested that with negatively skewed distribution, the CC indices were larger than with other distributions. Interactions occurred among ability distribution, cut score location, and score scale. Consequently, Lee's IRT procedure is reliable to be used in the field of large-scale educational assessment, and when reporting the indices, it should be treated with caution as testing conditions may vary a lot.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 38%
Psychology 2 15%
Computer Science 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,446,373
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,387
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,682
of 320,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#547
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.