Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Test Standards and Psychometric Modeling

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychosocial Skills and School Systems in the 21st Century

Part of the book series: The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality ((SSHE))

Abstracts

In this chapter we draw on The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999) as a general framework to discuss some key test standards that are highly relevant when constructing or selecting tests for psychosocial assessments in education. Specifically, we present basic principles that are associated with test score reliability and the validity of test score interpretations. We also elaborate on basic and more complex psychometric models and their importance for computing and understanding score reliability. In doing so, we show how results from confirmatory factor analysis can be used to compute McDonald’s omega (ω)—a model-based estimate of score reliability. Finally, we discuss some of the main challenges facing assessment of psychosocial constructs with a focus on response sets and response styles as well as general problems with test-criterion correlations.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The remainder of this chapter mainly revolves around tests and questionnaires. It is important to note, though, that the following quality issues also apply to interviews and behavior observations!

  2. 2.

    This section borrows from the article written by Brunner, Nagy, and Wilhelm (2012).

  3. 3.

    An in-depth discussion on how to compute reliability for more complex, hierarchical constructs can be found in Brunner et al. (2012).

References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The BIG five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74, 137–143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt, D. M., Lu, Y., & Kim, J.-S. (2014). Measurement and control of response styles using anchoring vignettes: A model-based approach. Psychological Methods. doi:10.1037/met0000016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonett, D. G. (2003). Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27, 335–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J. J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139–168). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology—Analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80(5), 307–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brogden, H. E., & Taylor, E. K. (1950). The theory and classification of criterion bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(2), 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(3), 460–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1958). What is“ objective” in“ objective personality tests?”. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5, 285–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1947). Test “reliability”: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Nussbeck, F., Geiser, C., Cole, D., Gollwitzer, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2008). Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: Different models for different types of methods. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 230–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingson, J. E. (2011). People fake only when they need to fake. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 19–33). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory. New York: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, X. (2003). Two approaches for correcting correlation attenuation caused by measurement error: Implications for research practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 915–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., et al. (2014). “My Questionnaire is Too Long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6, 430–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16, 319–336. doi:10.1037/a0024917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Bühner, M. (2012). Sensitivity of SEM fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heggestad, E. D., George, E., & Reeve, C. L. (2006). Transient error in personality scores: Considering honest and faked responses. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1201–1211. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 627–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1958). Content and style in personality-assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 55(4), 243–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Murray, C. J., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. The American Political Science Review, 98(1), 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2012). Test length and decision quality in personnel selection: When is short too short? International Journal of Testing, 12(4), 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2013a). Assessing individual change using short tests and questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38(3), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2013b). Shortening the S-STAI: Consequences for research and clinical practice. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 75(2), 167–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2013c). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13(3), 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyllonen, P. C., & Bertling, J. P. (2013). Innovative questionnaire assessment methods to increase cross-country comparability. In L. Rutkowski, M. von Davier, & D. Rutkowski (Eds.), Handbook of international large-scale assessment: Background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis (pp. 277–285). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindqvist, E., & Vestman, R. (2011). The labor market returns to cognitive and noncognitive ability: Evidence from the Swedish enlistment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 101–128. doi:10.1257/app.3.1.101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. doi:10.1037/a0033266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Loevinger, J. (1954). The attenuation paradox in test theory. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 21–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacCann, C. (2013). Instructed faking of the HEXACO reduces facet reliability and involves more Gc than Gf. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 828–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCann, C., Ziegler, M., & Roberts, R. (2011). Faking in personality assessment: Reflections and recommendations. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 309–329). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810–819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 675–686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mellenbergh, G. J. (1996). Measurement precision in test score and item response models. Psychological Methods, 1, 293–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., Maples, J., & Price, J. (2011). A comparison of agreeableness scores from the Big Five inventory and the NEO PI-R: Consequences for the study of narcissism and psychopathy. Assessment, 18(3), 335–339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Realo, A., Rossier, J., Zecca, G., Ah-Kion, J., et al. (2012). The effect of response style on self-reported conscientiousness across 20 countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1423–1436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mussel, P. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 506–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ones, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(6), 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace, V. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 669–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preckel, F. (2014). Assessing need for cognition in early adolescence: Validation of a German adaption of the Cacioppo/Petty scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 65–72. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaratnam, N., Cronbach, L., & Gleser, G. (1965). Generalizability of stratified-parallel tests. Psychometrika, 30(1), 39–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). You say the party is dull, I say it is lively a componential approach to how situations are perceived to disentangle perceiver, situation, and perceiver × situation variance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 519–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reips, U., & Funke, F. (2008). Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in internet-based research: VAS generator. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 699–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. doi:10.1037/a0029315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J., Carstensen, C. H., & Von Davier, M. (1997). Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. In J. In Rost & R. E. Langeheine (Eds.), Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. New York: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A. (1990). Robustness issues in structural equation modeling: a review of recent developments. Quality and Quantity, 24, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, J., Klaiberg, A., & Brähler, E. (Eds.). (2003). Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden [Diagnostic methods for assessing quality of life and subjective well-being]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (2006). Generalizability theory. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research. (pp. 309–322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaney, K. L., & Maraun, M. D. (2008). A proposed framework for conducting data-based test analysis. Psychological Methods, 13, 376–390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spengler, M., Lüdtke, O., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Personality is related to educational outcomes in late adolescence: Evidence from two large-scale achievement studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 613–625. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Constructing fake-resistant personality tests using item response theory: High-stakes personality testing with multidimensional pairwise preferences. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 214–239). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. M. (2011). What’s the DIF? Why differential item functioning analyses are an important part of instrument development and validation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 364–376. doi:10.1177/0734282911406666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, E., Böhnke, J. R., Carstensen, C. H., Ziegler, M., & Ostendorf, F. (2013). Do individual response styles matter? Journal of Individual Differences, 34(2), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, E., Carstensen, C. H., & Böhnke, J. R. (2013). Consistency of extreme response style and non-extreme response style across traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(2), 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2010). A note on structural equation modeling estimates of reliability. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickar, M. J., Gibby, R. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Uncovering faking samples in applicant, incumbent, and experimental data sets: An application of mixed-model item response theory. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 168–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zickar, M. J., & Sliter, K. A. (2011). Searching for unicorns: Item response theory-based solutions to the faking problem. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 113–130). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Bensch, D., Maaß, U., Schult, V., Vogel, M., & Bühner, M. (2014). Big Five facets as predictor of job training performance: The role of specific job demands. Learning and Individual Differences, 29(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Booth, T., & Bensch, D. (2013). Getting entangled in the nomological net. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 548–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Schölmerich, F., & Bühner, M. (2010). Predicting academic success with the Big 5 rated from different points of view: Self-rated, other rated and faked. European Journal of Personality, 24(4), 341–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., & Kemper, C. (2013). Extreme response style and faking: Two sides of the same coin? In P. Winker, R. Porst, & N. Menold (Eds.), Interviewers’ deviations in surveys: Impact, reasons, detection and prevention (Schriften Zur Empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung) (pp. 221–237). Frankfurt a. M: Peter Lang Gmbh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. R. (2011). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3–16). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychological Institute, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias Ziegler

  2. Department of Education and Psychology, Free University of Berlin, Otto-von-Simson-Straße 15, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Brunner

Authors
  1. Matthias Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Ziegler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology, CUNY, Queens College and the Graduate Center,, Flushing, New York, USA

    Anastasiya A Lipnevich

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany

    Franzis Preckel

  3. Professional Examination Service, Center for Innovative Assessments, New York, New York, USA

    Richard D. Roberts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ziegler, M., Brunner, M. (2016). Test Standards and Psychometric Modeling. In: Lipnevich, A., Preckel, F., Roberts, R. (eds) Psychosocial Skills and School Systems in the 21st Century. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation