[Rasch] Empirical order & Theoretical order

Tom Conner connert at msu.edu
Thu Nov 4 11:20:34 EST 2010

For sure number 1 is out of the problem based on well established 
analytical grounds.  So the problem is choosing between 2 and 3 or 
another alternative.  Between 2 and 3 I would opt for 3 based on my 
experience as a survey researcher.  People predictably write bad items, 
often because they think writing items is easy.  But there are ways of 
evaluating and revising items.  If that is done then we are left with 
theory revision or another alternative.  A possible other alternative is 
the conditions of administration.  What do respondents think is going 
on?  How will their responses be used and what consequences for 
themselves do they envision?  How long is the instrument?  You can no 
doubt add to this list.  Remember, this is research, not math.


Agustin Tristan wrote:
> Certainly the Rasch model is out of the problem. Only when a person wants to preserve the theory then he/she has to look for another model fitting the data. This is not our approach I think.
> Agustin
> Enviado desde mi oficina móvil BlackBerry® de Telcel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Bond <trevor.bond at jcu.edu.au>
> Sender: rasch-bounces at acer.edu.au
> Date: Thu,  4 Nov 2010 09:44:40 
> To: Parisa Daftari Fard<pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>; rasch list<rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] Empirical order & Theoretical order
> Dear Parisa,
> The topic sounds interesting. I believe that When we do not have an agreement 
> between Rach model and Theoretical model, there are three possibilities
> 1.  Rasch model requires revision
> 2.  Theory requires revision
> 3.  Items requires revision
> One of the 1, 2, or 3 should be revised.
> Best,
> Parisa
> At the moment, I am not willing to choose 1 - the Rasch model seems to be best 
> we have for our task of constructing and monitoring variables at this point.
> Here's an example of Rasch meets Piaget, where revision to Piaget's theory AND 
> Inhelder's methodology are recommended:
> Bond, T.G. & Bunting, E. (1995). Piaget and measurement III: Reassessing the 
> méthode clinique. Archives de Psychologie, 63, 231-255.
> Best
> Prof Trevor G BOND
> Adjunct Professor
> School of Education
> James Cook University
> mob: +61 416 82 70 83
> _______________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> Rasch at acer.edu.au
> Unsubscribe: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/ici_kalt%40yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> Rasch at acer.edu.au
> Unsubscribe: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu

Tom Conner
Professor of Sociology
Michigan State University
office: 517 355-1747
cell: 517 230-0343
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

More information about the Rasch mailing list