Further Remarks on Nondichotomization of Graded Responses
- 1 March 1995
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Psychometrika
- Vol. 60 (1) , 37-46
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294428
Abstract
In addition to addressing the points raised in Roskam (1995) as a rejoinder to Andrich (1995), these further remarks on the nondichotomization of graded responses attempt to clarify the difference in perspective between the two articles that gives rise to the different appreciation of what appear to be the same details. Therefore, these remarks take the following form: first, a brief comment is made on the development of the argument and perspective against routine dichotomization of graded responses (which is often seen as no more than commonsense); second, some points raised in the rejoinder are reexamined and clarified from this perspective; third, the perspective is consolidated with examples to show the way in which nondichotomization of graded responses is consistent with intuition. Roskam (1995) and Andrich (1995) are referred to, respectively, as the rejoinder and the paper.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Graded Responses and Joining Categories: A Rejoinder to Andrich' “Models For Measurement, Precision, and Nondichotomization of Graded Responses”Psychometrika, 1995
- Models for Measurement, Precision, and the Nondichotomization of Graded ResponsesPsychometrika, 1995
- A Rasch Model for Continuous RatingsPsychometrika, 1987
- Latent Trait Models and Dichotomization of Graded ResponsesPsychometrika, 1986
- An Extension of the Rasch Model for Ratings Providing Both Location and Dispersion ParametersPsychometrika, 1982
- A Rating Formulation for Ordered Response CategoriesPsychometrika, 1978
- Sufficient Statistics and Latent Trait ModelsPsychometrika, 1977
- Estimation of Latent Ability Using a Response Pattern of Graded ScoresPsychometrika, 1969