Comparison of IRT, CFA, and CTT
CTT provides a method of developing and evaluating a test or measure, however, respondent and item characteristics are inseparable and contribute to measurement error. CFA is a subset of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and is focused on the specification of a measurement model for a construct. CFA allows the researcher to specify the relationships among the items and the measure or measures, as well as the relationships among the constructs being measured. IRT allows for a clear evaluation and separation of the items that make up a measure and the respondents that provided data for a specific measure. While these approaches may appear to be vastly different, they share many similarities and often result in very similar conclusions being drawn about a psychological measure. Each of these approaches also has specific advantages and disadvantages.
For this Assignment, you will compare IRT, CFA, and CTT approaches, noting their similarities and differences as well as their advantages and disadvantages.
To prepare for this Assignment:
Review this week’s Learning Resources and the Discussion about the use of IRT, CFA, and CTT.
Consider the advantages, disadvantages, similarities, and differences among IRT, CFA, and CTT.
Submit a 2 page paper (not including references) that addresses the following:
Compare the three measurement approaches (IRT, CFA, and CTT). In your comparison, be sure to include:
An explanation of at least two ways IRT, CFA, and CTT are similar and at least two ways they are different. Your explanation of similarities and differences should focus on how the data are analyzed, and the kinds of information that result from these approaches.
An explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of IRT, CFA, and CTT.
Note: Support your Assignment with specific references to all resources used in its preparation. You are to provide a reference list for all resources, including those in the Learning Resources for this course.
LEARNING RESOURCES:
Furr, R. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology (pp. 91-109). SAGE Publications Ltd,
Furr, R. (2011). Item response theory. In Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology (pp. 126-142). SAGE Publications Ltd,
Penfield, R. D. (2013). Item analysis. In APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 121–138).
American Psychological Association. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Classical test theory. In Reliability and validity assessment (pp. 29-35). SAGE Publications, Inc.,
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT READINGS:
Allen, N. J., & John P. Meyer. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 370–380.
Positive and Negative Affect Readings:
Serafini, K., Malin-Mayor, B., Nich, C., Hunkele, K., & Carroll, K. M. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in a heterogeneous sample of substance users. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 42(2), 203–212.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
