Dueber David M, Love Abigail M A, Toland Michael D, Turner Trisha A
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Educ Psychol Meas. 2019 Feb;79(1):108-128. doi: 10.1177/0013164417752782. Epub 2018 Jan 23.
One of the most cited methodological issues is with the response format, which is traditionally a single-response Likert response format. Therefore, our study aims to elucidate and illustrate an alternative response format and analytic technique, Thurstonian item response theory (IRT), for analyzing data from surveys using an alternate response format, the forced-choice format. Specifically, we strove to give a thorough introduction of Thurstonian IRT at a more elementary level than previous publications in order to widen the possible audience. This article presents analyses and comparison of two versions of a self-report scale, one version using a single-response format and the other using a forced-choice format. Drawing from lessons learned from our study and literature, we present a number of recommendations for conducting research using the forced-choice format and Thurstonian IRT, as well as suggested avenues for future research.
被引用最多的方法学问题之一与回答格式有关，传统上它是一种单一回答的李克特回答格式。因此，我们的研究旨在阐明并展示一种替代的回答格式和分析技术——瑟斯顿项目反应理论（IRT），用于分析采用替代回答格式（强制选择格式）的调查数据。具体而言，我们努力以比以往出版物更基础的水平对瑟斯顿IRT进行全面介绍，以扩大可能的受众群体。本文呈现了一个自陈量表两个版本的分析与比较，一个版本采用单一回答格式，另一个版本采用强制选择格式。借鉴我们的研究和文献中的经验教训，我们针对使用强制选择格式和瑟斯顿IRT进行研究提出了一些建议，以及未来研究的建议方向。
