Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Item Response Theory× | Vertical Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field≠ | Psychometrics | Education |
| Family | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Year of origin≠ | 1952–1968 | 2014 |
| Originator≠ | Frederic M. Lord (and Allan Birnbaum for the 2PL/3PL models) | Educational measurement tradition (Thurstone; Kolen & Brennan synthesis) |
| Type≠ | Probabilistic measurement model | Construction of a single developmental score scale spanning multiple grades |
| Seminal source≠ | Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison-Wesley. link ↗ | Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2014). Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices (3rd ed.). Springer. ISBN: 9781493903160 |
| Aliases | IRT, latent trait theory, item characteristic curve theory, modern test theory | Developmental Scaling, Vertical Linking, Cross-Grade Scaling, Growth Scale Construction |
| Related≠ | 5 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | Item response theory models the probability that a respondent answers an item correctly (or endorses it) as a function of the respondent's latent trait level and the item's own statistical properties — difficulty, discrimination, and guessing. Unlike classical test theory, IRT places persons and items on the same scale, yielding measurement that is sample-independent for items and test-independent for persons. | Vertical scaling places tests written for different grade levels onto a single continuous score scale so that growth from one grade to the next can be measured in common units. Unlike horizontal equating, which links alternate forms intended to be interchangeable, vertical scaling deliberately links tests of differing difficulty and content to build a developmental continuum spanning, for example, grades 3 through 8. It is the measurement foundation that lets a fourth-grade and a fifth-grade score be subtracted to express how much a student grew. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|