Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:16:21.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Comparison of Item Parameters based on the Logistic and Normal Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Frank B. Baker
Frank B. Baker*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maximum likelihood estimates of item parameters of a scholastic aptitude test were computed using the normal and logistic models. The goodness of fit of ogives specified by the pairs of item parameters to the observed data was determined for all items. While negligible differences in the limen values were found, differences in item discrimination indices indicated that interpretation of these indices requires separate frames of reference. The empirical results showed the logistic model to be a useful alternative to the normal model in item analysis.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1961, pp. 239 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, F. B. Univac Scientific computer program for test scoring and item analysis. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Documentation Inst., Library of Congress, Document 5931.Google Scholar
Berkson, J. Why I prefer logits to probits. Biometrics, 1951, 7, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkson, J. A statistically precise and relatively simple method of estimating the bio-assay with quantal response, based upon the logistic function. J. Amer. statist. Ass., 1953, 48, 565–599.Google Scholar
Berkson, J. Tables for the maximum likelihood estimate of the logistic function. Biometrics, 1957, 13, 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. Probability and statistics in item analysis and classification problems. Efficient design and use of tests of mental ability for various decision-making problems, Texas: USAF Sch. Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB, 1957.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. Probability and statistics in item analysis and classification problems. Further considerations of efficiency in tests of a mental ability, Texas: USAF Sch. Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB, 1957.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, A. Probability and statistics in item analysis and classification problems. On the estimation of mental ability, Texas: USAF Sch. Aviation Medicine, Randolph AFB, 1957.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. The application of probit analysis to the results of mental tests. Psychometrika, 1944, 9, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. and Stevens, W. L. A table for calculating of working probits and weights in probit analysis. Biometrika, 1948, 35, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garwood, F. The application of maximum likelihood to dosage-mortality curves. Biometrika, 1941, 32, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, J. L. Jr. Fitting the logistic by maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 1958, 14, 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. On problems connected with item selection and test construction. Proc. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh, 1943, 61A, 273–287.Google Scholar
Layton, W. L. Construction of a short form of the Ohio State University psychological examination. Univ. Minnesota, Student Counseling Bureau, 1957.Google Scholar
Lord, F. A theory of test scores, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Maritz, J. S. Estimation of the correlation coefficient in the case of a bivariate normal distribution when one of the variables is dichotomized. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, A. E. Maximum likelihood estimates of item parameters using the logistic function. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R. Maximum validity of a test with equivalent items. Psychometrika, 1946, 11, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed