login - create an account - help

• AAPT ComPADRE
• Events
• Collaborate
• About
• Contact Us

Materials Similar to Methods for utilizing Item response theory with Coupled, Multiple-Response assessments

• 66%: Developing coupled, multiple-response assessment items addressing scientific practices
• 59%: Item response theory analysis of the mechanics baseline test
• 59%: Creating a coupled multiple response assessment for modeling in lab courses
• 57%: Analyzing Multiple-Choice-Multiple-Response Items Using Item Response Theory
• 56%: Identifying a preinstruction to postinstruction factor model for the Force Concept Inventory within a multitrait item response theory framework
• 56%: Multidimensional item response theory and the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment
• 55%: Multiple-Response Assessment for Upper-division Electrodynamics
• 52%: Coupled multiple-response versus free-response conceptual assessment: An example from upper-division physics
• 52%: Applying Rasch theory to evaluate the construct validity of brief electricity and magnetism assessment
• 51%: Linking and comparing short and full-length concept inventories of electricity and magnetism using item response theory
• 50%: Validation and analysis of the coupled multiple response Colorado upper-division electrostatics diagnostic
• 50%: Multidimensional item response theory and the Force Concept Inventory
• 49%: Multidimensional Item Response Theory and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism
• 48%: Classical test theory and item response theory comparison of the brief electricity and magnetism assessment and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism
• 47%: Multiple-choice Assessment for Upper-division Electricity and Magnetism
• 46%: Exploring the CLASS with Item Response Theory
• 45%: Assessing the assessment: Mutual information between response choices and factor scores
• 45%: Validity of Force Concept Inventory evaluated by students’ explanations and confirmation using modified item response curve
• 44%: Criteria for collapsing rating scale responses: A case study of the CLASS