[Rasch] Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2

Dan Kindlon dankindlon7 at gmail.com
Sun May 24 06:21:27 AEST 2015


Isn't the alpha statistic the mean of all possible split-half
reliabilities?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:00 PM, <rasch-request at acer.edu.au> wrote:

> Send Rasch mailing list submissions to
>         rasch at acer.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rasch-request at acer.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rasch-owner at acer.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Rasch digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. split half reliability (Parisa Daftari Fard)
>    2. Re: split half reliability (Tom Conner)
>    3. Re: split half reliability (Gregor So?an)
>    4. Re: split half reliability (Parisa Daftari Fard)
>    5. Re: split half reliability (Parisa Daftari Fard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 20:39:19 -0700
> From: Parisa Daftari Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432265959.23848.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I apologize to interrupt the ongoing discussion. I have been reading
> articles on dynamic assessment. One facial difference between such papers
> and others is that they reported split half reliability instead of Alpha.
> Is this due to the fact that DA is half NRT and Half CRT? I appreciate it
> if you help me with your incisive suggestion and readings.
>
>
> Cordially yours
> Parisa
>
> Parisa Daftarifard
> IAU (South Tehran Branch)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 07:27:15 +0100
> From: Tom Conner <connert at msu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <555ECC43.3060601 at msu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
>
> Parisa,  I don't know the answer to your specific question.  But I do
> know that split half reliability is a bogus measure.  It tells you
> nothing that is not contained in the variance.  I recommend you not use
> it unless a journal requires it.
>
> tlc
>
> On 5/22/15 4:39 AM, Parisa Daftari Fard wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > I apologize to interrupt the ongoing discussion. I have been reading
> articles on dynamic assessment. One facial difference between such papers
> and others is that they reported split half reliability instead of Alpha.
> Is this due to the fact that DA is half NRT and Half CRT? I appreciate it
> if you help me with your incisive suggestion and readings.
> >
> >
> > Cordially yours
> > Parisa
> >
> > Parisa Daftarifard
> > IAU (South Tehran Branch)
> > ________________________________________
> > Rasch mailing list
> > email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
> > web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu
>
> --
> Tom Conner
> Professor Emeritus
> Department of Sociology
> Michigan State University
>
> "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
> people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'
> thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:07:40 +0200
> From: Gregor So?an <gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <555EE3CC.8010802 at ff.uni-lj.si>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
>
> Hello,
>
> I do not agree with Tom. It is certainly not a bogus measure, except if
> you consider the classical test theory to be a bogus measurement
> paradigm. ;-)  Split-half reliability basically provides the same kind
> of information as alpha, that is, a lower bound to the sample
> reliability. Of course, both of them make sense only in the classical
> test theory framework.
> Parisa: Split-half gives more accurate results than alpha when the test
> items are relatively heterogeneous and you can divide them into two
> similar groups: so, I guess that in your case split-half might really be
> more approapriate than alpha (although I do not know what exactly is
> meant by NRT and CRT - are these measurements comparable to conventional
> test items?).
> The original reference is Guttman's (1945) paper in Psychometrika.
>
> Best regards, Gregor
>
>
> Dne 22.5.2015 ob 8:27 je Tom Conner zapisal(a):
> > Parisa,  I don't know the answer to your specific question.  But I do
> > know that split half reliability is a bogus measure.  It tells you
> > nothing that is not contained in the variance.  I recommend you not use
> > it unless a journal requires it.
> >
> > tlc
> >
> > On 5/22/15 4:39 AM, Parisa Daftari Fard wrote:
> >> Dear Friends,
> >>
> >> I apologize to interrupt the ongoing discussion. I have been reading
> articles on dynamic assessment. One facial difference between such papers
> and others is that they reported split half reliability instead of Alpha.
> Is this due to the fact that DA is half NRT and Half CRT? I appreciate it
> if you help me with your incisive suggestion and readings.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cordially yours
> >> Parisa
> >>
> >> Parisa Daftarifard
> >> IAU (South Tehran Branch)
> >> ________________________________________
> >> Rasch mailing list
> >> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
> >> web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:40:22 -0700
> From: Parisa Daftari Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432284022.39650.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thank you Tom
>
> You mean that alpha gives a clearer picture of the test function. The
> article says (I came across many articles on Dynamic assessment like this)
>
>
> In this study, three types of number concept achievement
> tests (pre-test, parallel test, and post-test) were developed for
> each age group. Each test consists of 10 sub-areas with 20
> items total (See Table 3).
> To make these test items, the face and content validity and
> split-half reliability were examined. To establish the content
> and face validity, a series of interviews were conducted with a
> professor, 5 graduate level students majoring in educational
> measurement and evaluation, a kindergarten principal, and 3
> kindergarten teachers who have more than 3 years of
> experiences. In addition, a pilot test for each test was
> conducted to check the appropriateness of hints, item
> difficulties, test validities, etc.
>
>
>
> Split half revised are reported as below
> Pre-test 0.73               and 0.75
> Parallel-test 0.82          and  0.63
> Post-test 0.78                 and  0.83
>
>
> The first column is the Split half for 4 year old children and the second
> column is for 5 years old
>
>
> Best
> Parisa
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 5/22/15, Tom Conner <connert at msu.edu> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
>  To: rasch at acer.edu.au
>  Date: Friday, May 22, 2015, 10:57 AM
>
>  Parisa,? I don't
>  know the answer to your specific question.? But I do
>  know that split half reliability is a bogus
>  measure.? It tells you
>  nothing that is not
>  contained in the variance.? I recommend you not use
>  it unless a journal requires it.
>
>  tlc
>
>  On
>  5/22/15 4:39 AM, Parisa Daftari Fard wrote:
>  > Dear Friends,
>  >
>  > I apologize to interrupt the ongoing
>  discussion. I have been reading articles on dynamic
>  assessment. One facial difference between such papers and
>  others is that they reported split half reliability instead
>  of Alpha. Is this due to the fact that DA is half NRT and
>  Half CRT? I appreciate it if you help me with your incisive
>  suggestion and readings.
>  >
>  >
>  > Cordially yours
>  > Parisa
>  >
>  > Parisa Daftarifard
>  >
>  IAU (South Tehran Branch)
>  >
>  ________________________________________
>  > Rasch mailing list
>  >
>  email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
>  > web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu
>
>  --
>  Tom
>  Conner
>  Professor Emeritus
>  Department of Sociology
>  Michigan State University
>
>  "I contemplate with sovereign reverence
>  that act of the whole American people which declared that
>  their legislature should 'make no law respecting an
>  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
>  thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
>  Church & State." Thomas Jefferson
>
>  ________________________________________
>  Rasch mailing list
>  email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
>  web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:43:57 -0700
> From: Parisa Daftari Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432284237.16666.YahooMailBasic at web162005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thank you Gregor for you nice attention,
>
> By NRT I mean norm reference test where data form  normal distribution,
> whereas CRT means criterion reference test where data may form skewed
> distribution.
>
>
> like Pretest and Posttest we have less variation in CRT
>
>
> So you think Split half is better with pretest and posttest in
> experimental design?
>
> Best
> Parisa
> --------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 5/22/15, Gregor So?an <gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
>  To: rasch at acer.edu.au
>  Date: Friday, May 22, 2015, 12:37 PM
>
>  Hello,
>
>  I do not agree with Tom. It is
>  certainly not a bogus measure, except if
>  you consider the classical test theory to be a
>  bogus measurement
>  paradigm. ;-)?
>  Split-half reliability basically provides the same kind
>  of information as alpha, that is, a lower bound
>  to the sample
>  reliability. Of course, both
>  of them make sense only in the classical
>  test theory framework.
>  Parisa:
>  Split-half gives more accurate results than alpha when the
>  test
>  items are relatively heterogeneous and
>  you can divide them into two
>  similar
>  groups: so, I guess that in your case split-half might
>  really be
>  more approapriate than alpha
>  (although I do not know what exactly is
>  meant by NRT and CRT - are these measurements
>  comparable to conventional
>  test items?).
>  The original reference is Guttman's (1945)
>  paper in Psychometrika.
>
>  Best regards, Gregor
>
>
>  Dne 22.5.2015 ob 8:27 je Tom Conner
>  zapisal(a):
>  > Parisa,? I don't know
>  the answer to your specific question.? But I do
>  > know that split half reliability is a
>  bogus measure.? It tells you
>  > nothing
>  that is not contained in the variance.? I recommend you not
>  use
>  > it unless a journal requires it.
>  >
>  > tlc
>  >
>  > On 5/22/15 4:39 AM,
>  Parisa Daftari Fard wrote:
>  >> Dear
>  Friends,
>  >>
>  >> I
>  apologize to interrupt the ongoing discussion. I have been
>  reading articles on dynamic assessment. One facial
>  difference between such papers and others is that they
>  reported split half reliability instead of Alpha. Is this
>  due to the fact that DA is half NRT and Half CRT? I
>  appreciate it if you help me with your incisive suggestion
>  and readings.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Cordially
>  yours
>  >> Parisa
>  >>
>  >> Parisa
>  Daftarifard
>  >> IAU (South Tehran
>  Branch)
>  >>
>  ________________________________________
>  >> Rasch mailing list
>  >> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
>  >> web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu
>
>  ________________________________________
>  Rasch mailing list
>  email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
>  web:
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> Rasch at acer.edu.au
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch
>
>
> End of Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/pipermail/rasch/attachments/20150523/cefa1c28/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rasch mailing list