Systematizing the Item Content in Test Design

  • Fons J. R. van de Vijver


Traditionally, constructing a test frequently amounts to writing a number of items, administering these items to a large sample of subjects, and—on the basis of these data—selecting a set of apparently appropriate items. This procedure cannot be expected to yield instruments that will satisfy the assumptions of item response theory (for a recent overview of these the reader is referred to Hambleton & Swaminathan, 1985). The weak spot in this procedure is the item writing. Items frequently differ in many ways, some of them of interest to the investigator, but some of them hardly specifiable.


Likelihood Ratio Test Item Response Theory Design Matrix Test Design Latent Trait 
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. Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 38, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Canter, D. (Ed.). (1985). Facet theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., and Harman, H. H. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, G. H. (1974). Einführung in die Theorie psychologischer Tests. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, G. H. (1976). Some probabilistic models for measuring change. In D. N. M. de Gruyter and L. J. Th. van der Kamp (Eds.), Advances in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 97–110 ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, G. H. (1983). Logistic latent trait models with linear constraints. Psychometrika, 48, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hambleton, R. K., and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Boston: KluwerNijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Spada, H. (1977). Logistic models of learning and thought. In H. Spada and W. F. Kempf (Eds.), Structural models of thinking and learning (pp. 227–262 ). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  9. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1984). Group differences in structured tests. Paper read at the Advanced Study Institute, Athens.Google Scholar
  10. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1986). The robustness of Rasch estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fons J. R. van de Vijver
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations