Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T14:30:53.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Ordinal Test Theory in Cross-cultural Research in Behavioural Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

John A. Keats
John A. Keats*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces the problems of cross-cultural research and shows how ordinal test theory can contribute to the solution of some of these problems. The concept of tied-ranks scores is introduced and the use of these scores for dichotomous and polytomous items is explained, as is the use of this theory for the examination of conjoint ordering. Conjoint ordering can then be used to determine the existence of an underlying variable, and to establish whether or not the same underlying variable can be defined for each of the cultures to be compared. Given the satisfaction of these conditions, cross-cultural comparisons can be made. Other considerations germane to the problem of cross-cultural comparisons are also considered.

Type
Articles
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 9 , 1997 , pp. 20 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea & the University of Newcastle, Australia 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angoff, W. H. & Ford, S. F. (1973). Item-race interaction on a test of scholastic aptitude. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, S. C., Munro, D., & Bishop, G. D. (1996). Attitude assessment in non-Western countries: Critical modifications to Likert scaling. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 39, 55–59.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. (1995). A partial test of Hulin's psychometric theory of measurement equivalence in translated tests. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 3, 184–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoghue, J. R. (1996, 08). A monte carlo examination of properies of ordinal test theory based on item sampling. Paper presented at the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) Congress, Montreal Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1944). The basis for scalogram analysis. In Stouffer, S. A., Guttman, L., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Star, S. A., & Clausen, J. A. (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction (Chapters 2,3,6,8,9). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: a progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244 Google Scholar
Harrington, G. M. (1985). Developmental perspectives, behavior - genetic analysis and models of the individual. In Brainerd, C. J. and Reyna, V. F. (Eds.), Psychological Development (pp. 63–82). Amsterdam: North-Holland Press.Google Scholar
Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131–152.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. W. B., & Ferguson, G. A. (1941). Studies on the reliability of tests, Bulletin 12. Toronto: Department of Educational Research, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1973). Educability and group differences. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press (Macmillan).Google Scholar
Keats, J. A. (1950). A Statistical theory of objective test scores. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Keats, J. A. (1971). An introduction to quantitative psychology. Sydney: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Keats, J. A. (1995). Justification of the scoring procedures for dichotomous and other polytomous items. Australian Psychologist, 30, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. (1948 and 1975). Rank Correlation Methods. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Loevenger, J. (1948). The technique of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of “scale analysis” and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 507–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
Muniz, J., Marcelino, Q., & Dolores, P. (1992). Dimensionality invariance. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 19, 181–190.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic modelsfor some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Nielsen & Lydiche.Google Scholar
Shimberg, M. F. (1929). An investigation into the validity of norms with special reference to urban and rural groups. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 104.Google Scholar
Van der Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.Google Scholar
Verweij, A. C. (1994). Scaling transitive inferences in 7-12 year old children. The Hague: Koninklijke Bibliothek.Google Scholar