Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:18:08.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interrelationships of Number-Correct and Limen Scores for an Amount-Limit Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Maurice Lorr
Maurice Lorr*
Affiliation:
Adjutant General's Department
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For an amount-limit test homogeneous as to content and varied as to difficulty it is established that an individual's number-right score and his limen score as estimated by the constant process are mathematically related. The experimental and the theoretic relationship between normal deviate and limen score are shown to be in good agreement. It is also found that the two methods of evaluating individual test performance yield equally reliable sets of scores for the procedures used. Accordingly where the assumptions basic to the relationship obtain, the more conveniently computed raw score may be considered to be as valid and reliable an index of individual test performance as the limen score. The concept of the dispersion parameter of the individual as a measure of change or error in test score found no experimental verification. Estimates of individual variability are unrelated to differences in score on equivalent forms.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1944 , pp. 17 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © 1944 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The writer gratefully acknowledges Lt. Colonel M. W. Richardson's invaluable counsel, Dr. H. Gulliksen's helpful suggestions, and Dr. H. H. Long's aid in administering the tests.

References

Brown, W. & Thomas, G. H. The essentials of mental measurement, London: Cambridge University Press, 1925.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. The determination of item difficulty when chance success is a factor. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. L. Statistical method, New York: Macmillan Company, 1923.Google Scholar
Kenny, John F. Mathematics of statistics, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1939.Google Scholar
Mosier, C. I. Psychophysics and mental test theory: fundamental postulates and elementary theorems. Psychol. Rev., 1940, 47, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosier, C. I. Psychophysics and mental test theory: II. The constant process. Psychol. Rev., 1941, 48, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. W. The relation between the difficulty and the differential validity of a test. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. W. Notes on the rationale of item analysis. Psychometrika, 1936, 1, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Scoring of individual performance. J. educ. Psychol., 1926, 17, 446–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The phi-gamma hypothesis. J. exper. Psychol., 1928, 11, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar