Award Date

1-1-1992

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Counseling and Educational Psychology

Number of Pages

61

Abstract

It has been theorized and evidenced that traditional reliabilities calculated on tests consisting of context-dependent item sets yield inflated estimates. However, the degree of inflated reliability for different scoring techniques has not been observed. This study scored three context-dependent item sets as stand-alone items and as separate item sets using three different scoring techniques; number-right, polyweighting and the three-parameter IRT logistic model. Differences in reliability estimates for the stand-alone and item set treatment were determined for each scoring procedure and compared. These three scoring procedures were also compared to determine which procedure yielded the highest reliability and validity estimates and precision of scoring within the item set treatment. The findings of this study were inconsistent with previous research in that only the polytomous scoring technique yielded inflated reliability estimates. In every comparison, number-right scoring and polyweighting were similar and outperformed the three-parameter IRT ability estimation model.

Keywords

Comparison; Context; Dependent; Item; Procedures; Scoring; Sets

Controlled Subject

Psychology--Research--Methodology

File Format

pdf

File Size

2232.32 KB

Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Language

English

Permissions

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have the full text removed from Digital Scholarship@UNLV, please submit a request to digitalscholarship@unlv.edu and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Identifier

https://doi.org/10.25669/zn0l-hut8


Share

COinS