Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:52:03.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods of Item Validation and Abacs for Item-Test Correlation and Critical Ratio of Upper-Lower Difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Charles I. Mosier  and
John V. McQuitty
Charles I. Mosier
Affiliation:
Board of Examiners, University of Florida
John V. McQuitty
Affiliation:
Board of Examiners, University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is shown that by making the assumption that the knowledge of the test-item and the knowledge of the entire test are both distributed normally, the correlation coefficient between any item and the entire test can be expressed as a function solely of two proportions — the percentage of a high-scoring group passing the item and the percentage of a low-scoring group passing the item. This function is expressed graphically as a family of curves for each of two conditions — where the high-scoring and low-scoring groups are samples of the highest and the lowest quarters respectively, and where they are samples from the upper and lower halves. It is shown, moreover, that two other common measures of item validity, the upper-lower difference and the critical ratio of the upper-lower difference, may be drawn on the same coordinate axes.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1940 , pp. 57 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 1940 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.)

References

Adkins, Dorothy C. A rational comparison of item-selection techniques. Psychol. Bull., 1938, 35, 655–655.Google Scholar
Chesire, L., Saffir, M., and Thurstone, L. L. Computing diagrams for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Bookstore, 1933.Google Scholar
Handy, N., and Lentz, T. F. Item value and test reliability. J. educ. Psychol., 1934, 25, 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentz, T. F., Hirschstein, B., and Finch, F. H. Evaluation of methods of evaluating test items. J. educ. Psychol., 1932, 23, 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. A., and Sandiford, P.The validation of test items. Bull. no. 3, Dept. Educ. Res., University of Toronto, 1935.Google Scholar
Pintner, R., and Forlano, G. A comparison of methods of item selection for a personality test. J. appl. Psychol, 1937, 21, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. W. The relation between the difficulty and 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, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. W., and Kuder, G. F. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 151–160.Google Scholar
Swineford, France. Validity of test items. J. educ. Psychol, 1936, 27, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar