How Often Do Subscores Have Added Value? Results from Operational and Simulated Data

Sandip Sinharay

131 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Educational Measurement

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Educational Assessment and Pedagogy Educational Technology and Assessment

Abstract

Recently, there has been an increasing level of interest in subscores for their potential diagnostic value. Haberman suggested a method based on classical test theory to determine whether subscores have added value over total scores. In this article I first provide a rich collection of results regarding when subscores were found to have added value for several operational data sets. Following that I provide results from a detailed simulation study that examines what properties subscores should possess in order to have added value. The results indicate that subscores have to satisfy strict standards of reliability and correlation to have added value. A weighted average of the subscore and the total score was found to have added value more often.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 131 citations exist upstream.

References

1985Standards for educational and psychological testing 200618 Multidimensional Item Response Theory 2007When Can Subscores Have Value?1992Interpreting Scales Through Scale Anchoring

Cited by

2010Reporting of Subscores Using Multidimensional Item Response Theory 2015Knowing What Teachers Know 2015Assessing Civic Competency and Engagement in Higher Education: Research Background, Frameworks, and Directions for Next‐Generation Assessment 2011An NCME Instructional Module on Subscores 2016Conducting Simulation Studies in Psychometrics 2017Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions 2017Retrofitting Diagnostic Classification Models to Responses From IRT-Based Assessment Forms 2019Bifactor Models, Explained Common Variance (ECV), and the Usefulness of Scores from Unidimensional Item Response Theory Analyses

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.