IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/lstaxx/v44y2015i21p4614-4621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Investigation of Agreement Between the Item Difficulty Coefficient Calculated in Accordance With Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory With Bland–Altman Method

Author

Listed:
  • Tülin Acar

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate agreement between item difficulty coefficients calculated relying on classical test theory and item response theory with Bland–Altman method. According to results, although there is a high correlation between Pj and b coefficient estimated with HGLM (hierarchical generalized linear model), 1P, and 3P models, it can be said that there is no agreement between two methods and cannot be used interchangeably. It is observed that the confidence limit is wide according to Bland–Altman graphics. Therefore, it can be said that there is no agreement between item difficulty values obtained from two methods. Bland–Altman method which is used in clinical studies mostly is suggested to be used in the comparison of methods used especially in the evaluation of student performance in education, in agreement studies among specialist considerations especially in terms of providing additional information to the studies in which correlation coefficient is calculated.

Suggested Citation

  • Tülin Acar, 2015. "An Investigation of Agreement Between the Item Difficulty Coefficient Calculated in Accordance With Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory With Bland–Altman Method," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(21), pages 4614-4621, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:44:y:2015:i:21:p:4614-4621
    DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2013.793353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03610926.2013.793353
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03610926.2013.793353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:44:y:2015:i:21:p:4614-4621. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/lsta .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.