Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Engelhard, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Thorndike, Thurstone, and Rasch: A Comparison of Their Methods of Scaling Psychological and Educational Tests

George Engelhard, JR

Office of Institutional Research and Evaluation, Chicago State University, Ninety-Fifth at King Drive, Chicago IL 60628, U.S.A.

The purpose of this study is to describe and com pare the methods used by Thorndike, Thurstone, and Rasch for calibrating test items. Thorndike and Thur stone represent a traditional psychometric approach to this problem, whereas Rasch represents a more mod em conceptualization derived from latent trait theory. These three major theorists in psychological and edu cational measurement were concerned with a common set of issues that seem to recur in a cyclical manner in psychometric theory. One such issue involves the in variance of item parameters. Each recognized the im portance of eliminating the effects of an arbitrary sam ple in the estimation of item parameters. The differ ences generally arise from the specific methods chosen to deal with the problem. Thorndike attempted to solve the problem of item invariance by adjusting for mean differences in ability distributions. Thurstone ex tended Thorndike's work by proposing two adjust ments which included an adjustment for differences in the dispersions of ability in addition to Thomdike's adjustment for mean differences. Rasch's method im plies a third adjustment, which involves the addition of a response model for each person in the sample. Data taken from Trabue (1916) are used to illustrate and compare how Thomdike, Thurstone, and Rasch would approach a common problem, namely, the cali bration of a single set of items administered to several groups.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 1, 21-38 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168400800104


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?