IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i4p2341-2360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relevance and advantages of using the item response theory

Author

Listed:
  • Silvana Bortolotti
  • Rafael Tezza
  • Dalton Andrade
  • Antonio Bornia
  • Afonso Sousa Júnior

Abstract

The item response theory (IRT) also known as latent trait theory, is used for the development, evaluation and administration of standardized measurements; it is widely used in the areas of psychology and education. This theory was developed and expanded for over 50 years and has contributed to the development of measurement scales of latent traits. This paper presents the basic and fundamental concepts of this IRT and a practical example of the construction of scales is proposed to illustrate the feasibility, advantages and validity of IRT through a known measurement, the height. The results obtained with the practical application of IRT confirm its effectiveness in the evaluation of latent traits. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Silvana Bortolotti & Rafael Tezza & Dalton Andrade & Antonio Bornia & Afonso Sousa Júnior, 2013. "Relevance and advantages of using the item response theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2341-2360, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:2341-2360
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9684-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9684-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-012-9684-5?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kees Van Der Veer & Reidar Ommundsen & Tony Hak & Knud Larsen, 2003. "Meaning Shift of Items in Different Language Versions. A Cross-National Validation Study of the Illegal Aliens Scale," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 193-206, May.
    2. Geoff Masters, 1982. "A rasch model for partial credit scoring," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 149-174, June.
    3. R. Bock & Murray Aitkin, 1981. "Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 443-459, December.
    4. R. Darrell Bock, 1972. "Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 29-51, March.
    5. Singh, Jagdip, 2004. "Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 184-208, February.
    6. Ledyard Tucker, 1946. "Maximum validity of a test with equivalent items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Jan Toporowski & Jo Michell, 2012. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Jan Toporowski & Jo Michell (ed.), Handbook of Critical Issues in Finance, pages i-ii, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Michelle Lalla & Gisella Facchinetti & Giovanni Mastroleo, 2005. "Ordinal scales and fuzzy set systems to measure agreement: An application to the evaluation of teaching activity," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 577-601, January.
    9. Herbert Hoijtink, 1990. "A latent trait model for dichotomous choice data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 641-656, December.
    10. Monica Szeles & Alessio Fusco, 2013. "Item response theory and the measurement of deprivation: evidence from Luxembourg data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1545-1560, April.
    11. Joeri Hofmans & Peter Theuns & Frederik Acker, 2009. "Combining quality and quantity. A psychometric evaluation of the self-anchoring scale," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 703-716, September.
    12. David Andrich, 1978. "A rating formulation for ordered response categories," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 561-573, December.
    13. Anwer Khurshid & Hardeo Sahai, 1993. "Scales of measurements: An introduction and a selected bibliography," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 303-324, August.
    14. Ting Lin, 2007. "Identifying Optimal Items in Quality of Life Assessment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 661-672, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gaetano Grilli & Antonella D’Agostino & Antoanneta Potsi, 2018. "Social Participation and Safety Deprivation of Children in Italy: PIIGS Countries in Perspective," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(1), pages 159-184, February.
    2. Jennifer Pérez-Sánchez & Gerardo Prieto & Ana R. Delgado, 2023. "Rasch analysis of the scores of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS) in a traffic context," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4681-4692, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dylan Molenaar, 2015. "Heteroscedastic Latent Trait Models for Dichotomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 625-644, September.
    2. Singh, Jagdip, 2004. "Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 184-208, February.
    3. Javier Revuelta, 2008. "The generalized Logit-Linear Item Response Model for Binary-Designed Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 385-405, September.
    4. Salzberger, Thomas & Newton, Fiona J. & Ewing, Michael T., 2014. "Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior: A Rasch-based solution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607.
    5. Salzberger, Thomas & Koller, Monika, 2013. "Towards a new paradigm of measurement in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1307-1317.
    6. Michele Lalla, 2017. "Fundamental characteristics and statistical analysis of ordinal variables: a review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 435-458, January.
    7. Kuan-Yu Jin & Yi-Jhen Wu & Hui-Fang Chen, 2022. "A New Multiprocess IRT Model With Ideal Points for Likert-Type Items," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(3), pages 297-321, June.
    8. Albert Maydeu-Olivares & Harry Joe, 2006. "Limited Information Goodness-of-fit Testing in Multidimensional Contingency Tables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 713-732, December.
    9. Salim Moussa, 2016. "A two-step item response theory procedure for a better measurement of marketing constructs," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 28-50, March.
    10. Stefano Noventa & Luca Stefanutti & Giulio Vidotto, 2014. "An Analysis of Item Response Theory and Rasch Models Based on the Most Probable Distribution Method," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 377-402, July.
    11. De Boeck, Paul & Partchev, Ivailo, 2012. "IRTrees: Tree-Based Item Response Models of the GLMM Family," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(c01).
    12. Ji Seung Yang & Xiaying Zheng, 2018. "Item Response Data Analysis Using Stata Item Response Theory Package," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(1), pages 116-129, February.
    13. David Magis, 2015. "A Note on the Equivalence Between Observed and Expected Information Functions With Polytomous IRT Models," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(1), pages 96-105, February.
    14. Anders Skrondal & Sophia Rabe‐Hesketh, 2007. "Latent Variable Modelling: A Survey," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 34(4), pages 712-745, December.
    15. Henk Kelderman & Carl Rijkes, 1994. "Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scored items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 149-176, June.
    16. David Magis, 2015. "A Note on Weighted Likelihood and Jeffreys Modal Estimation of Proficiency Levels in Polytomous Item Response Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 200-204, March.
    17. Timothy R. Johnson & Daniel M. Bolt, 2010. "On the Use of Factor-Analytic Multinomial Logit Item Response Models to Account for Individual Differences in Response Style," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 35(1), pages 92-114, February.
    18. David Hessen, 2012. "Fitting and Testing Conditional Multinormal Partial Credit Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 693-709, October.
    19. Alan Agresti, 1995. "Logit Models and Related Quasi-Symmetric Log-Linear Models for Comparing Responses to Similar Items in a Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 24(1), pages 68-95, August.
    20. David Magis & Norman Verhelst, 2017. "On the Finiteness of the Weighted Likelihood Estimator of Ability," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 637-647, September.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:4:p:2341-2360. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.