Haberman (2008) suggested a method to determine if subtest scores have added value over the total score. The method is based on classical test theory and considers the estimation of the true subscores. Performance of subgroups, for example, those based on gender or ethnicity, on subtests is often of interest. Researchers such as Stricker (1993) and Livingston and Rupp (2004) found that the difference in performance between the subgroups often varies over the different subtests. We suggest a method to examine whether the knowledge of the subgroup membership of the examinees leads to a better estimation of the true subscores. We apply our suggested method to data from two operational testing programmes. The knowledge of the subgroup membership of the examinees does not lead to a better estimation of the true subscore for the data sets.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02061.x | DOI Listing |
BMJ Nutr Prev Health
August 2024
Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
This article continues from a prior commentary on evaluating the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials addressing nutritional interventions. Having provided a synopsis of the risk of bias issues, we now address how to understand trial results, including the interpretation of best estimates of effect and the corresponding precision (eg, 95% CIs), as well as the applicability of the evidence to patients based on their unique circumstances (eg, patients' values and preferences when trading off potential desirable and undesirable health outcomes and indicators (eg, cholesterol), and the potential burden and cost of an intervention). Authors can express the estimates of effect for health outcomes and indicators in relative terms (relative risks, relative risk reductions, OR or HRs)-measures that are generally consistent across populations-and absolute terms (risk differences)-measures that are more intuitive to clinicians and patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMJ Nutr Prev Health
August 2024
Department of Nutrition, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
The purpose of this article, part 1 of 2 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is to provide readers (eg, clinicians, patients, health service and policy decision-makers) of the nutrition literature structured guidance on interpreting RCTs. Evaluation of a given RCT involves several considerations, including the potential for risk of bias, the assessment of estimates of effect and their corresponding precision, and the applicability of the evidence to one's patient. Risk of bias refers to flaws in the design or conduct of a study that may lead to a deviation from measuring the underlying true effect of an intervention.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHRB Open Res
January 2025
Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University - University Park Campus, University Park, Pennsylvania, PA 16802, USA.
Background: Puberty has been historically considered as a time of risk and vulnerability for young people. It is associated with rapid development in the hypothalamus, which is central in the production of both stress and sex steroids. While patterns of stress reactivity are calibrated in early life, this time of rapid development may provide a means for these patterns to change.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBioinspir Biomim
January 2025
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002, SOUTH AFRICA.
Limited research exists on the 3D geometric models and aerodynamic characteristics of the Grey-headed Albatross (GHA). Despite existing methods for extracting bird wing cross-sections, few studies consider deflections due to aerodynamic pressure. With the GHA known for its exceptional flight speed and purported wing-lock mechanism, it offers a valuable subject for studying fixed-wing aerodynamicsin nature.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJMIR Form Res
January 2025
Department of Public Health, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, 470-1192, Japan, 81 562-93-2476, 81 562-93-3079.
Background: Estimating the prevalence of schizophrenia in the general population remains a challenge worldwide, as well as in Japan. Few studies have estimated schizophrenia prevalence in the Japanese population and have often relied on reports from hospitals and self-reported physician diagnoses or typical schizophrenia symptoms. These approaches are likely to underestimate the true prevalence owing to stigma, poor insight, or lack of access to health care among respondents.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!