Some Problems With the Analytical Argument in Support of RP67 in the Context of the Bookmark Standard Setting Method.

Fisher information item response theory response probability standard setting

Journal

Applied psychological measurement
ISSN: 1552-3497
Titre abrégé: Appl Psychol Meas
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7905715

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Historique:
entrez: 28 8 2019
pubmed: 28 8 2019
medline: 28 8 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The choice of response probability in the bookmark method has been shown to affect outcomes in important ways. These findings have implications for the validity of the bookmark method because panelists' inability to internally adjust when given different response probabilities suggests that they are not performing the intended judgment task. In response to the concerns these findings raise, proponents of the bookmark method argue that such concerns can be addressed by using a response probability of .67. A crucial part of their argument includes the often-repeated claim that the .67 value corresponds with the maximum information for a correct response, which is believed to be beneficial in some way. In this article, it is shown that this claim is mistaken; that the formula upon which the .67 result is based is incorrect; that (for the relevant measurement model) there is no difference between the information for a correct response, for an incorrect response, or for the item overall; and, more generally, that the "maximize information" approach is based on the wrong likelihood function altogether.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31452556
doi: 10.1177/0146621618800272
pii: 10.1177_0146621618800272
pmc: PMC6696871
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

481-492

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Références

Psychometrika. 2009 Jun;74(2):273-296
pubmed: 20119511

Auteurs

Peter Baldwin (P)

National Board of Medical Examiners, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Classifications MeSH