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 Jansen, P. G. W.
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?

Relationships Between the Thurstone, Coombs, and Rasch Approaches to Itenl Scaling

Paul G. W. Jansen

Afdeling Bedrijfspsychologie, Centrale Directie PTT, P.O. Box 30000, 2500 GA The Hague, The Netherlands

Andrich (1978) derived a formal equivalency be tween Thurstone's Case V specialization of the law of comparative judgment for paired comparisons, with a logistic function substituted for the normal, and the Rasch model for direct responses. The equivalency was corroborated by a specific substantial-psychologi cal interpretation of the Rasch binary item response probability. Studying the relationships between the Thurstone and Rasch models from another perspective than Andrich's, namely, from a data-theoretical point of view, it appears that the equivalency is based on an implicit assumption with respect to the subject popula tion. This assumption (1) is rather restrictive, and therefore its empirical validity seems to be low, and (2) seems to contradict the substantial reasoning corro borating the Thurstone-Rasch equivalency. It is argued that the Thurstone model cannot be considered the sample-independent pair comparison counterpart of the Rasch model. An alternative pair comparison equiva lent of the Rasch model is tentatively proposed. Fi nally, the theoretical and practical implications of An drich's and of the present study are discussed.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 4, 373-383 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168400800401
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?