The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodology Review: Evaluating Person Fit
Open accessAbstract
Person-fit methods based on classical test theory-and item response theory (IRT), and methods investigating particular types of response behavior on tests, are examined. Similarities and differences among person-fit methods and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Sound person-fit methods have been derived for the Rasch model. For other IRT models, the empirical and theoretical distributions differ for most person-fit statistics when used with short and moderate length tests. The detection rate of person-fit statistics depends on the type of misfitting item-score patterns, test length, and trait levels. The usefulness of person-fit statistics for improving measurement depends on the application.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,022
Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests
(1961) · Information and Control · doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(61)80061-2 · Cited by 6,939
PAGE, E. S. (1954) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/41.1-2.100 · Cited by 5,739
(2000) · Cited by 4,106
Moran, P. A. P., & Kendall, M. G. (1973) · International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique · doi:10.2307/1402637 · Cited by 4,054
Bevan, J. M., & Kendall, M. G. (1971) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2986801 · Cited by 2,436
Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory
(1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6 · Cited by 2,305
Gulliksen, H. (1950) · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1037/13240-000 · Cited by 2,177
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982) · ACEReSearch Repository (Australian Council for Educational Research) · Cited by 1,930
Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,779
Cited by
Media use and acute psychological outcomes during COVID-19 outbreak in China
Chao, M., Xue, D., Liu, T., Yang, H., & Hall, B. J. (2020) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102248 · Cited by 300
Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., Carlson, J. S., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2010) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.001 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K.
- Venue
- Applied Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-135
- ISSN
- 0146-6216 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3497
- OpenAlex
- W2101707514
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 13.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methodology Review: Evaluating Person Fit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/01466210122031957
- The paper
- Meijer, R. R., & Sijtsma, K. (2001). Methodology Review: Evaluating Person Fit. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466210122031957
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
