Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An application of confidence intervals and of maximum likelihood to the estimation of an examinee's ability

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A mathematical definition of the theoretical relation between the examinee's actual responses to the test items and his “true ability” is selected. A maximum-likelihood solution is obtained for estimating the examinee's “true ability” from his responses to the items. The standard error of the maximum-likelihood estimate is obtained, its relation to the discriminating power of the test is pointed out, and some generalizations are drawn as to the optimum level of item difficulty. The Neyman-Pearson power function is applied to determine which of two psychological tests is the most powerful for the selection of “successful” examinees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brogden, H. Variation in test validity with variation in the distribution of item difficulties, number of items, and degree of their intercorrelation.Psychometrika, 1946,11, 197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cronbach, L. J., and Warrington, W. G. Efficiency of multiple-choice tests as a function of spread of item difficulties.Psychometrika, 1952,17, 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ferguson, G. A. Item selection by the constant process.Psychometrika, 1942,7, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Finney, D. J. Probit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Green, B. F. Latent class analysis: A general solution and an empirical evaluation. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1951.

  6. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gulliksen, H. The relation of item difficulty and inter-item correlation to test variance and reliability.Psychometrika, 1945,10, 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lawley, D. N. On problems connected with item selection and test construction.Proc. roy. Soc. Edin., 1943,61-A, Part 3, 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lawley, D. N. The factorial analysis of multiple item tests.Proc. roy. Soc. Edin., 1944,62-A, Part I, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (with S. A. Stoufferet al.). Measurement and prediction, Vol. 4 of studies in social psychology in World War II. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950, Chs. 10 and 11.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Long, J. A., and Sandiford, P. The validation of test items. Bulletin No. 3, Department of Educational Research, University of Toronto, 1935.

  13. Lord, F. M. A theory of test scores.Psychometric Monograph No. 7, 1952.

  14. Lord, F. M. The relation of the reliability of multiple-choice tests to the distribution of item difficulties.Psychometrika, 1952,17, 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lorr, M. Interrelationships of number-correct and limen scores for an amount limit test.Psychometrika, 1944,9, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mood, A. M. Introduction to the theory of statistics. McGraw-Hill, 1950.

  17. Mosier, C. I. Psychophysics and mental test theory: fundamental postulates and elementary theorems.Psychol. Rev., 1940,47, 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mosier, C. I. Psychophysics and mental test theory. II. The constant process.Psychol. Rev., 1941,48, 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Richardson, M. W. Relation between the difficulty and the differential validity of a test. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1936. AlsoPsychometrika, 1936,1 (No. 2), 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Symonds, P. M. Choice of items for a test on the basis of difficulty.J. educ. Psychol., 1928,19, 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thorndike, R. L. Personnel selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949, pp. 228–230.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thurstone, T. The difficulty of a test and its diagnostic value.J. educ. Psychol., 1932,23, 335–43.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tucker, L. R. Maximum validity of a test with equivalent items.Psychometrika, 1946,11, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tucker, L. R. A method for scaling ability test items in difficulty taking item unreliability into account.Amer. Psychologist, 1948,3, 309–10. (Abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wilks, S. S. Mathematical statistics. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Testing Service, USA

    Frederic M. Lord

Authors
  1. Frederic M. Lord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author is indebteded to Dr. John W. Tukey for helpful comments on a draft of the present manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lord, F.M. An application of confidence intervals and of maximum likelihood to the estimation of an examinee's ability. Psychometrika 18, 57–76 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289028

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289028

Keywords

Search

Navigation