CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Applied Measurement with jMetrik

Open access
Meyer, J. Patrick·2014·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9780203115190
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

jMetrik is a computer program for implementing classical and modern psychometric methods. It is designed to facilitate work in a production environment and to make advanced psychometric procedures accessible to every measurement practitioner. Applied Measurement with jMetrik reviews psychometric theory and describes how to use jMetrik to conduct a comprehensive psychometric analysis. Each chapter focuses on a topic in measurement, describes the steps for using jMetrik, and provides one or more examples of conducting an analysis on the topic. Recommendations and guidance for practice is provided throughout the book.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203115190

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The item separation index (4.92) and reliability (0.96) indicated that item difficulties could be rank ordered on the latent trait.

    “The item separation index (4.92) and reliability (0.96) indicated that the item difficulties can be rank ordered on the latent trait (Meyer, 2014).”

    From Coercive Control in the Courtroom: the Legal Abuse Scale (LAS) (2023) · cites this paper as Meyer, 2014

    The retrieved passages from *Applied Measurement with jMetrik* are chiefly its References section (page unavailable); none explains an item separation index as evidence that item difficulties can be rank ordered. Searches for “item separation,” “rank order of item difficulty,” and the values 4.92 and 0.96 did not locate a passage supporting the stated interpretation or numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43 (4), 561-573.
  2. Ankenmann, R. D. , Witt, E. A. , & Dunbar, S. B. (1999). An investigation of the power of the likelihood ratio goodness-of-fit statistic in detecting differential item funcitoning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 277-300.
  3. Baker, F. B. , & Al-Karni, A. (1991). A comparison of two procedures for computing IRT equating coefficients. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 147-162.
  4. Bond, T. G. , & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296-322.
  6. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37-46.
  7. Cook, L. L. , & Eignor, D. R. (1991). An NCME module on IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10 (3), 191-199.
  8. Cronbach, L. J. , & Warrington, W. G. (1952). Efficiency of multiple-choice tests as a function of spread of item difficulties. Psychometrika, 17, 127-147. doi: 10.1007/BF02288778 · DOI
  9. de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  10. Donoghue, J. R. , & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131-154.
  11. Dorans, N. J. , Schmitt, A. P. , & Belistein, C. A. (1992). The standardization approach to assessing comprehensive differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 309-319.
  12. Feldt, L. S. (2002). Estimating the internal consistency reliability of tests composed of test- lets varying in length. Applied Measurement in Education, 15 (1), 33-48.
  13. Feldt, L. S. , & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). New York, NY: American Council on Education and MacMillan.
  14. Green, S. B. , & Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Structural Equation Modeling, 7 (2), 251-270.
  15. Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10 (4), 255-282.
  16. Haebara, T. (1980). Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Japanese Psychological Research, 22 (3), 144-149.
  17. Hambleton, R. K. , & Rodgers, J. H. (1995). Item bias review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 4(6). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=4&n=6
  18. Hanson, B. A. , & Brennan, R. L. (1990). An investigation of classification consistency indexes estimated under alternative strong true score models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27 (4), 345-359.
  19. Holland, P. W. , & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel- Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145).
  20. Huynh, H. (1976a). On the reliability of decisions in domain-referenced testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13 (4), 253-264.
  21. Huynh, H. (1976b). Statistical consideration of mastery scores. Psychometrika, 41 (1), 65-78.
  22. Huynh, H. (1996). Decomposition of a Rasch partial credit item into independent binary and indecomposable trinary items. Psychometrika, 61 (1), 31-39.
  23. Huynh, H. , & Meyer, J. P. (2003). Maximum information approach to scale description based on the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 101-110.
  24. Huynh, H. , & Meyer, J. P. (2010). Use of robust z in detecting unstable items in item response theory models. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15 (2), 1-8.
  25. Jones, A. T. (2009). Using the right tool for the job: An analysis of item selection statistics for criterion-referenced tests (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (No. 3352760).
  26. Jones, A. T. (2011). Comparing methods for item analysis: The impact of different item- selection statistics on test difficulty. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35 (7), 566-571.
  27. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36 (2), 109-133.
  28. Keats, J. A. , & Lord, F. M. (1962). A theoretical distribution for mental test scores. Psychometrika, 27 (1), 59-72.
  29. Kim, S. , & Kolen, M. J. (2007). Effects of scale linking on different definitions of criterion functions for the IRT characteristic curve methods. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32 (4), 371-397.
  30. Kim, S. , & Lee, W.-C. (2006). An extension of four IRT linking methods for mixed-format tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 53-76.
  31. Kolen, M. J. (2006). Scaling and norming. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., 155-186). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  32. Kolen, M. J. , & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York: Springer.
  33. Kuder, G. F. , & Richardson, M. W. (1937). Theory and estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2 (3), 151-160.
  34. Lee, W.-C. (2007). Multinomial and compound multinomial error models for tests with complex item scoring. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 255-274. doi: 10.1177/0146621606294206 · DOI
  35. Lee, W.-C. , Brennan, R. L. , & Wan, L. (2009). Classification Consistency and Accuracy for Complex Assessments Under the Compound Multinomial Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 374-390. doi: 10.1177/0146621608321759 · DOI
  36. Lord, F. M. (1952). The relation of the reliability of multiple-choice tests to the distribution of item difficulties. Psychometrika, 17, 181-194. doi: 10.1007/BF02288781 · DOI
  37. Lord, F. M. , & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  38. Loyd, B. H. , & Hoover, H. D. (1980). Vertical equating using the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17 (3), 179-193.
  39. Mantel, N. (1963). Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; extensions of the Mantel- Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 690-700.
  40. Marco, G. L. (1977). Item characteristic curve solutions to three intractable testing problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14 (2), 139-160.
  41. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47 (2), 149-174.
  42. Meyer, J. P. (2010). Reliability. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  43. Meyer, J. P. , & Hailey, E. (2012). A study of Rasch partial credit, and rating scale model parameter recovery in WINSTEPS and jMetrik. Journal of Applied Measurement, 13 (3), 248-258.
  44. Qualls, A. L. (1995). Estimating the reliability of a test containing multiple item formats. Applied Measurement in Education, 8 (2), 111-120.
  45. Rogers, H. J. , & Swaminathan, H. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 361-370.
  46. Rupp, A. A. , & Zumbo, B. (2006). Understanding parameter invariance in unidimensional IRT models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 (1), 63-84. doi: 10.1177/0013164404273942 · DOI
  47. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-101.
  48. Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271-295.
  49. Stocking, M. L. , & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(2), 201-210.
  50. Subkoviak, M. J. (1976). Estimating reliability from a single administration of a criterion- referenced test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13 (4), 265-276.
  51. Wainer, H. , Bradlow, E. T. , & Wang, X. (2007). Testlet response theory and its applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Williams, P. E. , Weiss, L. G. , & Rolfhus, E. L. (2003). WISC-IV technical report #2: Psychometric properties. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
  53. Wright, B. , & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
  54. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 125-145. doi: 10.1177/014662168400800201 · DOI
  55. Zwick, R. , & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.
  56. Zwick, R. , & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187-201.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, J. P.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Corresponding author
Meyer, J. Patrick
ORCID
Meyer, J. Patrick
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2014-06-13
DOI
10.4324/9780203115190
OpenAlex
W597319708
Cited by
170
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.77
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
Funders
Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
psychometrics, psychometric assessment, classical test theory, measurement practices

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