SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

Gaining a Better Understanding of General Mattering Scale: An Application of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory

Halil Ibrahim SARİ
Mehmet Akif KARAMAN
Pages
668–681
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, we discussed that while CTT provides comparatively superficial information but, IRT allows gaining deeper insight into the test items and response categories.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The current study shows applications of both classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) to psychology data.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study discusses item level analyses of General Mattering Scale produced by two theories as well as strengths and weaknesses of both measurement approaches.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, we discussed that while CTT provides comparatively superficial information but, IRT allows gaining deeper insight into the test items and response categories.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Classical test theory · Item response theory · Generalized partial model

Abstract

The current study shows applications of both classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) to psychology data. The study discusses item level analyses of General Mattering Scale produced by two theories as well as strengths and weaknesses of both measurement approaches. The survey consisted of a total of five Likert-type items. Each student chose the best answers from the given categories (e.g., not at all, a little, somewhat, very much). We specifically run generalized partial credit IRT model. Overall, we discussed that while CTT provides comparatively superficial information but, IRT allows gaining deeper insight into the test items and response categories. We concluded that the meaning of item properties differ in CTT and IRT, and this difference may lead to different interpretations. We aimed to encourage psychologists and counsellors to give more consideration to the IRT applications when assessing the psychometric features of the items.

Özet

The current study shows applications of both classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) to psychology data. The study discusses item level analyses of General Mattering Scale produced by two theories as well as strengths and weaknesses of both measurement approaches. The survey consisted of a total of five Likert-type items. Each student chose the best answers from the given categories (e.g., not at all, a little, somewhat, very much). We specifically run generalized partial credit IRT model. Overall, we discussed that while CTT provides comparatively superficial information but, IRT allows gaining deeper insight into the test items and response categories. We concluded that the meaning of item properties differ in CTT and IRT, and this difference may lead to different interpretations. We aimed to encourage psychologists and counsellors to give more consideration to the IRT applications when assessing the psychometric features of the items.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARİ, H. I., KARAMAN, M. A. (2022). Gaining a Better Understanding of General Mattering Scale: An Application of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 668–681. https://ajindex.com/articles/540211

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS. Baker F. (1992).
  2. Item response theory. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, INC. Brodin, U., Fors, U., & Laksov, K. B. (2010). The application of item response theory on a teaching strategy profile questionnaire. BMC medical education, 10, 14-14- doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-14
  3. Cha, M. (2016). The mediation effect of mattering and self-esteem in the relationship between socially prescribed perfectionism and depression: Based on the social disconnection model. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 148-159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.008 Cho, S., Drasgow, F., & Cao, M. (2015). An investigation of emotional intelligence measures using item response theory. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1241–1252. doi:10.1037/pas0000132 Connolly, K. M., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Wellness and mattering: The role of holistic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40, 152-160. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2003.tb00866.x Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford. Demir, M., Özen, A. & Doğan, A. (2012). Friendship, perceived mattering and happiness: A study of American and Turkish college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 659-664. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2011.650237 Dodeen, H., & Al-Darmaki, F. (2016). The application of item response theory in developing and validating a shortened version of the Emirate Marital Satisfaction Scale. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1625-1633. doi:10.1037/pas0000296.supp Embretson S.E, & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, IN: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Flett, G. L., Galfi-Pechenkov, I., Molnar, D. S., Hewitt, P. L., & Goldstein, A. L. (2012). Perfectionism, mattering, and depression: A mediational analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 828-832. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.041 Gomez, R., & Vance, A. (2015). Item response theory properties of the internalizing disorders in adolescents. Journal of Childhood & Developmental Disorders, 1, 1-10. doi:10.4172/2472-1786.100006 Haktanir, A., Lenz, A. S., Can, N., & Watson, J. C. (2016). Development and evaluation of Turkish language versions of three positive psychology assessments. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 38, 286-297. doi:10.1007/s10447-016-9272-9
  4. Hays, R