English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This inquiry is focused on three indicators of the precision of measurement—conditional on fixed values of θ, the latent variable of item response theory (IRT). The indicators that are compared are (1) The traditional, conditional standard errors, [Formula: see text] = CSEM; (2) the IRT-based conditional standard errors, [Formula: see text] (where [Formula: see text] is the IRT score information function); and (3) a new conditional reliability coefficient, [Formula: see text]. These indicators of conditional precision are shown to be functionally related to one another. The IRT-based, conditional CSEM, [Formula: see text], and the conditional reliability, [Formula: see text], involve an estimate of the conditional true variance, [Formula: see text], which is shown to be approximately equal to the numerator of the score information function. It is argued—and illustrated with an example—that the traditional, conditional standard error, CSEM, is not sufficient for determining conditional score precision when used as the lone indicator of precision; hence, the portions of a score distribution, where scores are most-and-least precise, can be misidentified.

Conditional Precision of Measurement for Test Scores: Are Conditional Standard Errors Sufficient?