[Rasch] Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2

Gregor Sočan gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si
Sun May 24 07:32:53 AEST 2015


Yes, Guttman's coefficient does not require equal variances of the part 
scores.

Gregor

Dne 23.5.2015 ob 23:16 je Parisa Daftari Fard zapisal(a):
> IfI am right Guttman does not take care for correlation assumption. It 
> is based on variance . Am I right?
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 24, 2015 1:05 AM, "Swank, Paul R" 
> <Paul.R.Swank at uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> It is the mean of all possible Guttman-Flanagan split halves, not 
> Spearman-Brown split halves.
>
> Paul Swank
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 23, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Dan Kindlon <dankindlon7 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dankindlon7 at gmail.com><mailto:dankindlon7 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dankindlon7 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au>>> wrote:
> Send Rasch mailing list submissions to
> rasch at acer.edu.au <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_listinfo_rasch&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=ZiaAxWU8--g50iRMvYUWWoofxML6lELGTwLKisJ7s50&e=>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rasch-request at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch-request at acer.edu.au>>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rasch-owner at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch-owner at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch-owner at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com><mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>>>
> Subject: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432265959.23848.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto:1432265959.23848.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><mailto:1432265959.23848.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:connert at msu.edu><mailto:connert at msu.edu <mailto:connert at msu.edu>>>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>>
> Message-ID: <555ECC43.3060601 at msu.edu 
> <mailto:555ECC43.3060601 at msu.edu><mailto:555ECC43.3060601 at msu.edu 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> > web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_connert-2540msu.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=6NLm6r8bFW2zgpSAvQLNzFZgAIQOmwdKtFzvsj-yn4c&e=>
>
> --
> 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 
> <mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si><mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si 
> <mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si>>>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>>
> Message-ID: <555EE3CC.8010802 at ff.uni-lj.si 
> <mailto:555EE3CC.8010802 at ff.uni-lj.si><mailto:555EE3CC.8010802 at ff.uni-lj.si 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> >> web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_connert-2540msu.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=6NLm6r8bFW2zgpSAvQLNzFZgAIQOmwdKtFzvsj-yn4c&e=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:40:22 -0700
> From: Parisa Daftari Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com><mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432284022.39650.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto:1432284022.39650.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><mailto:1432284022.39650.YahooMailBasic at web162003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:connert at msu.edu><mailto:connert at msu.edu 
> <mailto:connert at msu.edu>>> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> > web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_connert-2540msu.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=6NLm6r8bFW2zgpSAvQLNzFZgAIQOmwdKtFzvsj-yn4c&e=>
>
> --
> 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 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_pdaftaryfard-2540yahoo.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=tp1zNJBfqxbE0QTF_jH2bg0TN3xhNa5GQIe2Xd_OiT8&e=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 01:43:57 -0700
> From: Parisa Daftari Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com><mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>>>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: <rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>>
> Message-ID:
>         <1432284237.16666.YahooMailBasic at web162005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto:1432284237.16666.YahooMailBasic at web162005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com><mailto:1432284237.16666.YahooMailBasic at web162005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si><mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si 
> <mailto:gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si>>> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half reliability
> To: rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> >> web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/connert%40msu.edu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_connert-2540msu.edu&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=6NLm6r8bFW2zgpSAvQLNzFZgAIQOmwdKtFzvsj-yn4c&e=>
>
> ________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_pdaftaryfard-2540yahoo.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=tp1zNJBfqxbE0QTF_jH2bg0TN3xhNa5GQIe2Xd_OiT8&e=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> Rasch at acer.edu.au <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/rasch<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_listinfo_rasch&d=AwMFaQ&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=ZiaAxWU8--g50iRMvYUWWoofxML6lELGTwLKisJ7s50&e=>
>
>
> End of Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2
> *************************************
>
> ________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au><mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au 
> <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>>
> web: 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailinglist.acer.edu.au_mailman_options_rasch_paul.r.swank-2540uth.tmc.edu&d=AwICAg&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=8frmz39BMbPfozSCry7R2XF1zD3P8iT3dTcbzh5VWc8&m=xmjJfc7OQeXQizvEI7AHlkWXee3UMHirsBsJ0sLiuBw&s=D43XPZK4cNgIn8i0wCVYapunmoUJGxNfVxGUwU5CrwA&e= 
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au <mailto:Rasch at acer.edu.au>
> web: 
> https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Rasch mailing list
> email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
> web: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/gregor.socan%40ff.uni-lj.si

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/pipermail/rasch/attachments/20150523/e22cef3e/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rasch mailing list