Importancia de utilizar la teoría de la respuesta al ítem (TRI) en la construcción de pruebas de aptitud y conocimiento
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
El objetivo de este artículo consiste en introducir al lector en los conceptos básicos relacionados con la Teoría de la Respuesta al Ítem (TRI), por tal razón, ha sido dividido en dos secciones:
En la primera sección, se presentan los fundamentos teóricos de la TRI y los principios básicos sobre los que se ha construido esta teoría y elementos.
En la segunda, se utilizan los datos obtenidos en la aplicación de una prueba de aptitud donde se pueden visualizar los valores paramétricos de los ítems y su interpretación.
A través de la TRI se conoce la estructura de un ítem por medio de su curva característica (CCI), así como también, nos permite realizar estimaciones de los parámetros de los ítems y del nivel de aptitud de los sujetos.
Palabras clave:
Teoría de respuesta al item(TRI), Test, Pruebas de aptitud y conocimiento, psicometría
Cómo citar
Díaz Esteve, J. V. (2016). Importancia de utilizar la teoría de la respuesta al ítem (TRI) en la construcción de pruebas de aptitud y conocimiento. Revista De Investigación Y Evaluación Educativa, 3(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.47554/revie.vol3.num1.2016.pp66-89
DESCARGAS
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Métricas
Cargando métricas ...
Detalles del artículo
Referencias
Ackerman, P.L. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact and item validity from multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educatinal Measurement , 27, 241-253.
Angoff, W.H. (1982). Uses of difficulty and discrimination indices for detecting item bias. En R.A. Berk (Ed.). Handbook of Methods for detecting item bias (pp. 96-11).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. University Press.
Barbero, 1. (1996). Los bancos de ítems. En J. Muñiz (Coord.), Psicometría, 139-170, Madrid: Universitas.
Baker, F.B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter Estimation. techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Binet, A. .(1911). Nouvelles Recherches sur la measure du niveau intellectuel chez les enfants d’echole. Revue Philosophie,11,191-244.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. En F.M. Lord & M.R. Novick. Statistical theories of mental test scores . Reading M.A.: Addison Wesley.
Bock, R.D, Mislevy, R. J. y Woodsen, C.E.M. (1982). The next stage in educational assessment. Educational Researcher, 11, 4-11, 16.
Bock, R.D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two o more categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
Bock, R.D. (1997). The Nominal Categories Model. En W.J. van der Linden y R.K Hambleton (Eds.).Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 33-51). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bock, R.D. Muraki E. y Pfeiffenbarger, W. (1988). Item pool miantenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.
Bock, R.D. y Aitkin, M. (1981).Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algoritmo. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
Bock, R.D. y Wood, R.C. (1971). Test Theory,Annual Review of Pshcology, 22 193-224.
Bock, R.D. y Zimowski, M.F. (1997). Multiple Group IRT. En W.J. van der Linden y R.K Hambleton (Eds.).Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 433-448). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Budgell, G.R. Raju. N.S. y Quartetti, D.A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in traslated assessment instrument. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
Camilli, G. (1993). A critique of the chi-square method for assessing item bias. Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado.
Camilli, G. y Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifing biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Candell, G.L y Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking matrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
Díaz, J.V. (1997): La Teoría de las respuestas a los ítems aplicada a la construcción de tests aptitudes .Valencia, Cristobal Serrano.
Dorans, N.J. Schmitt, A.P. y Bleistein, C.A (1992). The standardization approach to asessing comprehensive differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 309-319.
Eells, K., Davis, A., Havighurs, R. J., Herrick,V.E., Tyler R.W. (1951): Intelligence and Cultural Differences: A study of Cultural Learning and Problem-Solving. University of Chicago Press
Gómez, J. y Navas, M.J. (1996). Detección del funcionamiento differencial de los items mediante regresión logística: purificación paso a paso de la habilidad. Psicológica, 17, 397-411.
Hambleton, R. K. y Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and Application. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Hambleton, R.K. Swaminathan, H. y Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundaments of Item response theory Newbury: SAGE Publications.
Hattie, J.A. (1985). Methodological review: assessing unidimensonality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
Hidalgo, M.D. y López Pina, J.A. (1997). Evluación del funcionamiento diferencial en items politómicos mediante el estadístico de Lord y las medidas de áreas. Psicológica, 18, 69-92.
Holland, P.W y Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mental-Haenszel procedure. En H. Wainer y H.I. Braun (Eds.). Test Validity (pp. 129-145).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holland, P.W y Wainer H. (Eds.) (1993) Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hulin, C.L. Drasgow, F. y Parsons, C.K. (1983). Item response theory. Homewood, I11: Dowjones Irwin.
Ironson, G.H. y Subkoviak, M.J. (1979). A comparison of several method of assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 209-225.
Jensen, A.R. (1979). g: Outmoded or unconquered frontier?Creative Science and Technology, 2 , 16-29.
Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
Kim, S. Cohen, A.S. y Park, T (1995). Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups.Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 261-276.
Kim, S. y Cohen, A.S. (1991). A comparison of two area measures for detecting deifferential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 269-278.
Kok, F.G, Mellenbergh, G.J.y van der Flier, H. (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using th iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 1-11
.Lawley, D.N. (1943). On problem connected with item selection and test construction. Preecedings of the Royal Society od Edinburgh, 6, 273-287.
Linn, R.L. y Harnisch, D.L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership o achivement test item. Journal of Educatonal Measurement, 18, 109-118.
Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. (Psychometric Monograph, nº 7) Iowa City, IA: Psychometric Society.
Lord, F. M. and Novick M. R. (1968). Statistical of theories of mental test scores. Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley.N.Y.
Lord, F.M.(1975). The “ability” scale in item characteristic curve theory. Psychometrica, 40 , 205-217.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, N. J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martínez Arias, R.(1995): Psicometría: Teoría de los tests psicológicos y educativos. Madrid. Sintesis Psicología.
Maydeu, A. (1996). Modelos multidimensionales de la Teoría de respuesta a los itemes. En J. Muñiz (ED.). Psicometría. (pp. 811-868). Madrid. Universitas.
Messick, S, Beaton, A.E. y Lord, F.M. (1983). National Assessment of Educational Progress reconsidered: A new desing for a new era. (NAEP Rep-83-1). Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Mislevy, R. J. y R. D. Bock (1990): BILOG 3. Item Analysis and Test Scoring with Binary Logistic Models. (2 eds), Moresville, IN: Scientific Software
Mislevy, R.J. (1993b): Foundation of a new test theory. En N.F. Frederiksen, R.J. Mislery and I.I. Bejar (Eds). Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, N. J. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Múñiz Fernández , J. (1990). Teoría de la Respuesta a los ítems: Un nuevo enfoque en la evolución psicológica y educativa. Ediciones Pirámide Madrid.
Múñiz Fernández , J. (1996). Fiabilidad. En J. Muñiz (Ed),Psicometría. Madrid: Universitas.
Múñiz Fernández, J. (1997). Desarrollos y perspectivas en la psicometría actual. Sevilla. Ponencia presentada en el.V Congreso de Metología de las CC. Humanas y Sociales..
Park, D. y Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias dtection wiyh iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
Potenza, M.T. y Dorans, N.J (1995). DIF assessment for polythomously scored items: framework for classification and evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 23-37.
Prieto, G (1997). Nuevas perspectivas en la construcción de tests. V Congreso de Metodología de las Ciencias Humanas, Sevilla.
Prieto, G y Delgado, A (1996).
Construcción de Items. En J..Muñiz (Ed.) Psicometría. Madrid: Universitas.
Raju, N.S. (1988). The area between two item charcteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502
Raju, N.S. (1990). Determining the significance os estimated signed and unsigned areas between tow item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14 (2), 197-207.
Rasch, G.A. (1960, 1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Chicago University Press. (reedición del original Danmarks Pedagogiske Institute Copenhgen).
Rasch, G. A. (1968). Mathematical theory of objetivity and its consequences for model construction. Amsterdam: a report from the European Meeting on Statistic, Econometrics, and Manegement Sciences.
Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor trait model applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
Reckase, M.D. (1983). The definition of dificulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the meetting of American Educational research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Reckase, M. D. (1993). The definition of dificulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the metting of American Educational research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Reckase, M. D. (1997). The past and future of multidimensional Item Response Theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21. 25-26.
Reynolds, C.R. y Brown, R.T. (1984). Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Academic Press.
Santisteban, C (1990). Psicometría: teoría y práctica en la construcción de tests. Madrid: Norma.
Shealy, R. y Stout, W.F (1993). A model-based standardiztion approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
Smith, P.L. (1978). Sampling errors of variance components in small sample generalizabiity indeces. J . of Educational Statistics, 3, 319-346.
Stern, W. (1914). The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence. Educational Psychol. Monograph. No 13. Baltimore: Warwick and York.
Stout, W. Li, H-N, Nandakumar, R. y Bolt, D. (1997). MULTISIB: A procedure to investigate DIF when a test i intentionally tow-dimensional. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 195-214.
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
Theunissen, T.J.M. (1985). Binnary programing and test design. Psychometrika, 50, 411-420.
Thissen, D. (1988). MULTILOG. Multipe, Categorical Item Analysis and Testing Scoring using Item Response Theory. (Version 5.1).
Moresville, IN: Scientific Software
Angoff, W.H. (1982). Uses of difficulty and discrimination indices for detecting item bias. En R.A. Berk (Ed.). Handbook of Methods for detecting item bias (pp. 96-11).
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. University Press.
Barbero, 1. (1996). Los bancos de ítems. En J. Muñiz (Coord.), Psicometría, 139-170, Madrid: Universitas.
Baker, F.B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter Estimation. techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Binet, A. .(1911). Nouvelles Recherches sur la measure du niveau intellectuel chez les enfants d’echole. Revue Philosophie,11,191-244.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. En F.M. Lord & M.R. Novick. Statistical theories of mental test scores . Reading M.A.: Addison Wesley.
Bock, R.D, Mislevy, R. J. y Woodsen, C.E.M. (1982). The next stage in educational assessment. Educational Researcher, 11, 4-11, 16.
Bock, R.D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two o more categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
Bock, R.D. (1997). The Nominal Categories Model. En W.J. van der Linden y R.K Hambleton (Eds.).Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 33-51). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bock, R.D. Muraki E. y Pfeiffenbarger, W. (1988). Item pool miantenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.
Bock, R.D. y Aitkin, M. (1981).Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algoritmo. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
Bock, R.D. y Wood, R.C. (1971). Test Theory,Annual Review of Pshcology, 22 193-224.
Bock, R.D. y Zimowski, M.F. (1997). Multiple Group IRT. En W.J. van der Linden y R.K Hambleton (Eds.).Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 433-448). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Budgell, G.R. Raju. N.S. y Quartetti, D.A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in traslated assessment instrument. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321.
Camilli, G. (1993). A critique of the chi-square method for assessing item bias. Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado.
Camilli, G. y Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifing biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Candell, G.L y Drasgow, F. (1988). An iterative procedure for linking matrics and assessing item bias in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 253-260.
Díaz, J.V. (1997): La Teoría de las respuestas a los ítems aplicada a la construcción de tests aptitudes .Valencia, Cristobal Serrano.
Dorans, N.J. Schmitt, A.P. y Bleistein, C.A (1992). The standardization approach to asessing comprehensive differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 309-319.
Eells, K., Davis, A., Havighurs, R. J., Herrick,V.E., Tyler R.W. (1951): Intelligence and Cultural Differences: A study of Cultural Learning and Problem-Solving. University of Chicago Press
Gómez, J. y Navas, M.J. (1996). Detección del funcionamiento differencial de los items mediante regresión logística: purificación paso a paso de la habilidad. Psicológica, 17, 397-411.
Hambleton, R. K. y Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and Application. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Hambleton, R.K. Swaminathan, H. y Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundaments of Item response theory Newbury: SAGE Publications.
Hattie, J.A. (1985). Methodological review: assessing unidimensonality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
Hidalgo, M.D. y López Pina, J.A. (1997). Evluación del funcionamiento diferencial en items politómicos mediante el estadístico de Lord y las medidas de áreas. Psicológica, 18, 69-92.
Holland, P.W y Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mental-Haenszel procedure. En H. Wainer y H.I. Braun (Eds.). Test Validity (pp. 129-145).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holland, P.W y Wainer H. (Eds.) (1993) Differential item functioning: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hulin, C.L. Drasgow, F. y Parsons, C.K. (1983). Item response theory. Homewood, I11: Dowjones Irwin.
Ironson, G.H. y Subkoviak, M.J. (1979). A comparison of several method of assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 209-225.
Jensen, A.R. (1979). g: Outmoded or unconquered frontier?Creative Science and Technology, 2 , 16-29.
Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
Kim, S. Cohen, A.S. y Park, T (1995). Detection of differential item functioning in multiple groups.Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 261-276.
Kim, S. y Cohen, A.S. (1991). A comparison of two area measures for detecting deifferential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 269-278.
Kok, F.G, Mellenbergh, G.J.y van der Flier, H. (1985). Detecting experimentally induced item bias using th iterative logit method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 18, 1-11
.Lawley, D.N. (1943). On problem connected with item selection and test construction. Preecedings of the Royal Society od Edinburgh, 6, 273-287.
Linn, R.L. y Harnisch, D.L. (1981). Interactions between item content and group membership o achivement test item. Journal of Educatonal Measurement, 18, 109-118.
Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. (Psychometric Monograph, nº 7) Iowa City, IA: Psychometric Society.
Lord, F. M. and Novick M. R. (1968). Statistical of theories of mental test scores. Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley.N.Y.
Lord, F.M.(1975). The “ability” scale in item characteristic curve theory. Psychometrica, 40 , 205-217.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, N. J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martínez Arias, R.(1995): Psicometría: Teoría de los tests psicológicos y educativos. Madrid. Sintesis Psicología.
Maydeu, A. (1996). Modelos multidimensionales de la Teoría de respuesta a los itemes. En J. Muñiz (ED.). Psicometría. (pp. 811-868). Madrid. Universitas.
Messick, S, Beaton, A.E. y Lord, F.M. (1983). National Assessment of Educational Progress reconsidered: A new desing for a new era. (NAEP Rep-83-1). Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Mislevy, R. J. y R. D. Bock (1990): BILOG 3. Item Analysis and Test Scoring with Binary Logistic Models. (2 eds), Moresville, IN: Scientific Software
Mislevy, R.J. (1993b): Foundation of a new test theory. En N.F. Frederiksen, R.J. Mislery and I.I. Bejar (Eds). Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, N. J. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Múñiz Fernández , J. (1990). Teoría de la Respuesta a los ítems: Un nuevo enfoque en la evolución psicológica y educativa. Ediciones Pirámide Madrid.
Múñiz Fernández , J. (1996). Fiabilidad. En J. Muñiz (Ed),Psicometría. Madrid: Universitas.
Múñiz Fernández, J. (1997). Desarrollos y perspectivas en la psicometría actual. Sevilla. Ponencia presentada en el.V Congreso de Metología de las CC. Humanas y Sociales..
Park, D. y Lautenschlager, G.J. (1990). Improving IRT item bias dtection wiyh iterative linking and ability scale purification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 163-173.
Potenza, M.T. y Dorans, N.J (1995). DIF assessment for polythomously scored items: framework for classification and evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 23-37.
Prieto, G (1997). Nuevas perspectivas en la construcción de tests. V Congreso de Metodología de las Ciencias Humanas, Sevilla.
Prieto, G y Delgado, A (1996).
Construcción de Items. En J..Muñiz (Ed.) Psicometría. Madrid: Universitas.
Raju, N.S. (1988). The area between two item charcteristic curves. Psychometrika, 53, 495-502
Raju, N.S. (1990). Determining the significance os estimated signed and unsigned areas between tow item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14 (2), 197-207.
Rasch, G.A. (1960, 1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Chicago University Press. (reedición del original Danmarks Pedagogiske Institute Copenhgen).
Rasch, G. A. (1968). Mathematical theory of objetivity and its consequences for model construction. Amsterdam: a report from the European Meeting on Statistic, Econometrics, and Manegement Sciences.
Reckase, M.D. (1979). Unifactor trait model applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
Reckase, M.D. (1983). The definition of dificulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the meetting of American Educational research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Reckase, M. D. (1993). The definition of dificulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the metting of American Educational research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Reckase, M. D. (1997). The past and future of multidimensional Item Response Theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21. 25-26.
Reynolds, C.R. y Brown, R.T. (1984). Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Academic Press.
Santisteban, C (1990). Psicometría: teoría y práctica en la construcción de tests. Madrid: Norma.
Shealy, R. y Stout, W.F (1993). A model-based standardiztion approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
Smith, P.L. (1978). Sampling errors of variance components in small sample generalizabiity indeces. J . of Educational Statistics, 3, 319-346.
Stern, W. (1914). The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence. Educational Psychol. Monograph. No 13. Baltimore: Warwick and York.
Stout, W. Li, H-N, Nandakumar, R. y Bolt, D. (1997). MULTISIB: A procedure to investigate DIF when a test i intentionally tow-dimensional. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 195-214.
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 345-354.
Theunissen, T.J.M. (1985). Binnary programing and test design. Psychometrika, 50, 411-420.
Thissen, D. (1988). MULTILOG. Multipe, Categorical Item Analysis and Testing Scoring using Item Response Theory. (Version 5.1).
Moresville, IN: Scientific Software
Barra lateral del artículo
Publicado:
feb 1, 2016
Sección
Artículos
