, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

Methods of item validation and abacs for item-test correlation and critical ratio of upper-lower difference

  • Charles I. Mosier
  • John V. McQuitty


It is shown that by making the assumption that the knowledge of the test-item and the knowledge of the entire test are both distributed normally, the correlation coefficient between any item and the entire test can be expressed as a function solely of two proportions — the percentage of a high-scoring group passing the item and the percentage of a low-scoring group passing the item. This function is expressed graphically as a family of curves for each of two conditions — where the high-scoring and low-scoring groups are samples of the highest and the lowest quarters respectively, and where they are samples from the upper and lower halves. It is shown, moreover, that two other common measures of item validity, the upper-lower difference and the critical ratio of the upper-lower difference, may be drawn on the same coordinate axes.


Public Policy Statistical Theory Lower Half Common Measure Critical Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adkins, Dorothy C. A rational comparison of item-selection techniques.Psychol. Bull., 1938,35, 655.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesire, L., Saffir, M., and Thurstone, L. L. Computing diagrams for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Bookstore, 1933.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Handy, N., and Lentz, T. F. Item value and test reliability.J. educ. Psychol., 1934,25, 703–708.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lentz, T. F., Hirschstein, B., and Finch, F. H. Evaluation of methods of evaluating test items.J. educ. Psychol., 1932,23, 344–350.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Long, J. A., and Sandiford, P. The validation of test items. Bull. no. 3, Dept. Educ. Res., University of Toronto, 1935.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pintner, R., and Forlano, G. A comparison of methods of item selection for a personality test.J. appl. Psychol, 1937,21, 643–652.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson, M. W. The relation between the difficulty and differential validity of a test.Psychometrika, 1936, June,1, 33–50.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson, M. W. Notes on the rationale of item analysis.Psychometrika, 1936, March,1, 69–76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richardson, M. W., and Kuder, G. F. The theory of the estimation of test reliability.Psychometrika, 1937,2, 151–160.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swineford, Frances. Validity of test items.J. educ. Psychol, 1936,27, 68–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychometric Society 1940

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles I. Mosier
    • 1
  • John V. McQuitty
    • 1
  1. 1.Board of ExaminersUniversity of FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations