Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 274, 2021
2nd International Scientific Conference on Socio-Technical Construction and Civil Engineering (STCCE – 2021)
Article Number 12007
Number of page(s) 7
Section The Language of Construction
Published online 18 June 2021
  1. M. Allen, W. Yen, Introduction to measurement theory (2002) [Google Scholar]
  2. F. Lord, M. Novick, M. Addison-Wesley, Statistical theories of mental test scores (1968) [Google Scholar]
  3. M.R. Novick, The axioms and principal results of classical test theory, Journal of mathematical psychology, 3, 1–18, DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(66)90002-2 (1966) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. R.K. Hambleton, R.J. Shavelson, N.M. Webb, H. Swaminathan, H.J. Rogers, Fundamentals of item response theory (1991) [Google Scholar]
  5. F.B. Baker, The basics of item response theory (2001) [Google Scholar]
  6. A.A. Bichi, R. Talib, Item Response Theory: An Introduction to Latent Trait Models to Test and Item Development, International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 2(7), 142–151, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v7i2.12900 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  7. W. Bonifay, L. Cai, On the complexity of item response theory models, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4(52), 465–484, DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2017.1309262 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. S.E. Embretson, S.P. Reise, Item response theory (2013) [Google Scholar]
  9. I. Himelfarb, A primer on standardized testing: History, measurement, classical test theory, item response theory, and equating, Journal of Chiropractic Education, 2(33), 151–163, DOI: 10.7899/jce-18-22 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. F. Lord, Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems (1980) [Google Scholar]
  11. G. Rasch, An item analysis which takes individual differences into account, British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 1(19), 49–57, DOI: 10.1111/bmsp.1966.19.issue-1 (1966) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. W. Divale, M. Harris, D.T. Williams, On the misuse of statistics: a reply to Hirschfeld et. al., American Anthropologist, 2(80), 379–386, DOI: 10.1525/aa.1978.80.2.02a00160 (1978) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. T.J. Lamiell, Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics (2019) [Google Scholar]
  14. E. Park et al., Correct use of repeated measures analysis of variance, Korean J Lab Med, 1(29), 1–9, DOI: 10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.1.1 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  15. [Google Scholar]
  16. L. Ahmad Afip, M.O. Hamid, P Renshaw, Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR): insights into global policy borrowing in Malaysian higher education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3 (17), 378–393, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1578195 (2019) [Google Scholar]
  17. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2001) [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Siegel, Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, (1956) [Google Scholar]
  19. S.S. Sawilowsky, Misconceptions leading to choosing the t test over the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test for shift in location parameter, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 4, 598–600, DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1130804700 (2005) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. M.W. Fagerland , L. Sandvik, The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test under scrutiny, Statistics in medicine, 10 (28), 1487–1497, DOI: 10.1002/sim.3561 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.