[Rasch] Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2

Parisa Daftari Fard pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com
Wed May 27 19:44:40 AEST 2015


Dear Friends,

Thank you for your replies. I appreciate them indeed. 

Cordially yours
Parisa 

Parisa Daftarifard


--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 5/25/15, Gregor Sočan <gregor.socan at ff.uni-lj.si> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Rasch] Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2
 To: rasch at acer.edu.au
 Date: Monday, May 25, 2015, 2:35 AM
 
 
     Obviously because of the item heterogeneity (NRT vs.
 CRT, whatever
     this means).
 
     
 
     Gregor
 
     
 
     Dne 24.5.2015
 ob 4:45 je Parisa Daftari
       Fard zapisal(a):
 
     
     
       So why do you think
         these two papers reported split half? 
 
         
         
 
         
 
           
 
         
         
           
             
                
 On Sunday,
                   May 24, 2015 2:53 AM, "Swank, Paul
 R"
                   <Paul.R.Swank at uth.tmc.edu>
 wrote:
 
                  
               
 
               
 
               Alpha is more sensitive
 to
                 heterogeneity of item content than the split
 half, as
                 long as the halves have equal content
 coverage. However,
                 neither method is very good with criterion
 referenced
                 test due to the low variance of such tests.
 The standard
                 error of Measurement may be helpful,
 however.
 
                 
 
                 Paul Swank
 
                 
 
                 Sent from my iPad
 
                 
 
                 On May 23, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Parisa Daftari
 Fard <pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com<mailto:pdaftaryfard at yahoo.com>>
                 wrote:
 
                 
 
                 Yes but why shouldnt mean be reported?
 
                 
 
                 
 
                 On Sunday, May 24, 2015 12:51 AM, Dan
 Kindlon <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>>
                 wrote:
 
                 Send Rasch mailing list submissions to
 
                         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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=4xZ_ten0if4MWXWEb9PGAnif-3-WBANs3XXykbNC6W0&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>
 
                 
 
                 You can reach the person managing the list
 at
 
                         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>>
 
                 Subject: [Rasch] split half reliability
 
                 To: <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>>
 
                 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>>
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: <rasch at acer.edu.au<mailto:rasch at acer.edu.au>>
 
                 Message-ID: <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>
 
                 > 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=GIg2Jqn_JPIkUi6de0VkdcthDfBQIfohM2l0IWSMRxg&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>>
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: <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>>
 
                 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>
 
                 >> 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=GIg2Jqn_JPIkUi6de0VkdcthDfBQIfohM2l0IWSMRxg&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>>
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: <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>>
 
                 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>>
                 wrote:
 
                 
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: 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>
 
                 > 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=GIg2Jqn_JPIkUi6de0VkdcthDfBQIfohM2l0IWSMRxg&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>
 
                 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=f1HPEwbrKRcQZOAQpHsvoeyZqq7KbxwFkqA1NnGZhOI&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>>
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: <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>>
 
                 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>>
                 wrote:
 
                 
 
                 Subject: Re: [Rasch] split half
 reliability
 
                 To: 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>
 
                 >> 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=GIg2Jqn_JPIkUi6de0VkdcthDfBQIfohM2l0IWSMRxg&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<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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=f1HPEwbrKRcQZOAQpHsvoeyZqq7KbxwFkqA1NnGZhOI&e=>
 
                 
 
                 
 
                 
 
                 ------------------------------
 
                 
 
                
 _______________________________________________
 
                 Rasch mailing list
 
                 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=4xZ_ten0if4MWXWEb9PGAnif-3-WBANs3XXykbNC6W0&e=>
 
                 
 
                 
 
                 End of Rasch Digest, Vol 118, Issue 2
 
                 *************************************
 
                 
 
                 
 
                 ________________________________________
 
                 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<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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=f1HPEwbrKRcQZOAQpHsvoeyZqq7KbxwFkqA1NnGZhOI&e=>
 
                 
 
                 ________________________________________
 
                 Rasch mailing list
 
                 email: 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=qU9SkCdQlvP9KYtpTs10-kkSNO_U7v8QVVSspIj1xlQ&s=nhs91DxeeEVYFmnfWEa-WQbQyWrmzLWPx8UjTu7ao1Q&e=
                 
 
                  
 ________________________________________
 
                   Rasch mailing list
 
                   email: 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
     
     
 
   
 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
 
 ________________________________________
 Rasch mailing list
 email: Rasch at acer.edu.au
 web: https://mailinglist.acer.edu.au/mailman/options/rasch/pdaftaryfard%40yahoo.com


More information about the Rasch mailing list