Rasch模型技术鉴别不同项目功能有效性的证据。

Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 1998-01-01
J D Scheuneman, R G Subhiyah
{"title":"Rasch模型技术鉴别不同项目功能有效性的证据。","authors":"J D Scheuneman,&nbsp;R G Subhiyah","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper presents an analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) in a certification examination for a medical specialty. The groups analyzed were (1) physicians from different subspecialties within this area and (2) physicians who qualified for the examination through two different experiential pathways. The DIF analyses were performed using a simple Rasch model procedure. The results were shown to be readily interpretable in terms of the known differences between the groups being compared. These results serve as validity evidence for the Rasch model procedure as a means for evaluating DIF in examinations. The conclusion is drawn that complex procedures are not required to generate interpretable results if relevant differences between the groups being compared are known. This suggests that the inability of many researchers to interpret results for racial/ethnic or gender groups is not due to inadequacies of the methods, but more likely to lack of pertinent knowledge about group differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"2 1","pages":"33-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence for the validity of a Rasch model technique for identifying differential item functioning.\",\"authors\":\"J D Scheuneman,&nbsp;R G Subhiyah\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper presents an analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) in a certification examination for a medical specialty. The groups analyzed were (1) physicians from different subspecialties within this area and (2) physicians who qualified for the examination through two different experiential pathways. The DIF analyses were performed using a simple Rasch model procedure. The results were shown to be readily interpretable in terms of the known differences between the groups being compared. These results serve as validity evidence for the Rasch model procedure as a means for evaluating DIF in examinations. The conclusion is drawn that complex procedures are not required to generate interpretable results if relevant differences between the groups being compared are known. This suggests that the inability of many researchers to interpret results for racial/ethnic or gender groups is not due to inadequacies of the methods, but more likely to lack of pertinent knowledge about group differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"33-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of outcome measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了在医学专业认证考试中的差异项目功能(DIF)的分析。分析的群体是:(1)来自该地区不同亚专科的医生;(2)通过两种不同的经验途径获得考试资格的医生。使用简单的Rasch模型程序进行DIF分析。结果表明,根据所比较的组之间的已知差异,很容易解释。这些结果为Rasch模型程序作为评估检查中DIF的手段提供了有效性证据。得出的结论是,如果被比较的群体之间的相关差异是已知的,则不需要复杂的程序来产生可解释的结果。这表明,许多研究人员无法解释种族/民族或性别群体的结果不是由于方法的不足,而更可能是缺乏关于群体差异的相关知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence for the validity of a Rasch model technique for identifying differential item functioning.

This paper presents an analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) in a certification examination for a medical specialty. The groups analyzed were (1) physicians from different subspecialties within this area and (2) physicians who qualified for the examination through two different experiential pathways. The DIF analyses were performed using a simple Rasch model procedure. The results were shown to be readily interpretable in terms of the known differences between the groups being compared. These results serve as validity evidence for the Rasch model procedure as a means for evaluating DIF in examinations. The conclusion is drawn that complex procedures are not required to generate interpretable results if relevant differences between the groups being compared are known. This suggests that the inability of many researchers to interpret results for racial/ethnic or gender groups is not due to inadequacies of the methods, but more likely to lack of pertinent knowledge about group differences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model. Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). Competency gradient for child-parent centers. Alternate forms reliability of the assessment of motor and process skills.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1