Utility analysis : current trends and future directions.

Utility analysis procedures offer organizational decision-makers useful information regarding the relative values of different interventions. Years of research have resulted in a number of practically viable utility models and extensions. There is a continued need for research to examine the accuracy of utility estimates and to further compare the different models. A more recent research concern is that of low levels of acceptance of utility analysis results by practitioners. Many researchers are turning their attention to ways in which this acceptance may be increased. This article reviews different utility models as well as a number of important extensions. It then discusses current utility analysis issues, such as the aforementioned acceptance problem and the introduction of a multi-attribute utility model. The article concludes with suggestions for future utility analysis researchUtility theory; Mathematical models; Decision making;

Utility analysis : current trends and future directions

Utility analysis procedures offer organizational decision-makers useful information regarding the relative values of different interventions. Years of research have resulted in a number of practically viable utility models and extensions. There is a continued need for research to examine the accuracy of utility estimates and to further compare the different models. A more recent research concern is that of low levels of acceptance of utility analysis results by practitioners. Many researchers are turning their attention to ways in which this acceptance may be increased. This article reviews different utility models as well as a number of important extensions. It then discusses current utility analysis issues, such as the aforementioned acceptance problem and the introduction of a multi-attribute utility model. The article concludes with suggestions for future utility analysis researchPublicad

Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions

Asymptotic sampling distributions (means and variances) of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions (IRFS) are presented for the Rasch model, the two-parameter model, and the three-parameter model with fixed lower asymptotes. In item bias or differential item functioning research, it may be of interest to determine whether the estimated signed and unsigned areas between IRFS calibrated with two different groups are significantly different from 0. The usefulness of these sampling distributions in this context is discussed and illustrated. More empirical research with the proposed significance tests is necessary. Index terms: asymptotic mean and variance, differential item functioning, item bias, item response functions, item response theory

Extent of Overlap among Four Item Bias Methods

Four methods of item bias detection-transformed item difficulty, item discrimination expressed as Clemans\u27 lambda, ChiSquare, and the three-parameter item characteristic curve-were studied to determine the degree of correspondence among them in identifying biased and unbiased items in reading and math subtests of the 1978 SRA Achievement Series. Intercorrelations among the four methods were moderate at best, confirming previous research involving different item bias analysis techniques. The item discrimination method showed the least correspondence with the other three methods. The extent of overlap between the four item bias methods in identifying biased items depends on the extent of bias in the items comprising the initial pool of items. That is, except for the item discrimination method, the item bias procedures identify similar sets of most biased items

Note on two generalizations of coefficient alpha

reliability, coefficient alpha, coefficient beta, stratified-parallel tests,

Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments

The usefulness of three IRT-based methods and the Mantel-Haenszel technique in evaluating the measurement equivalence of translated assessment instruments was investigated. A 15-item numerical test and an 18-item reasoning test that were originally developed in English and then translated to French were used. The analyses were based on four groups, each containing 1,000 examinees. Two groups of English-speaking examinees were administered the English version of the tests; the other two were French-speaking examinees who were administered the French version of the tests. The percent of items identified with significant differential item functioning (DIF) in this study was similar to findings in previous large-sample studies. The four DIF methods showed substantial consistency in identifying items with significant DIF when replicated. Suggestions for future research are provided. Index terms: area measures, differential item functioning, item response theory, language translations, Lord’s X², Mantel-Haenszel procedure

Evaluating Human Resources Programs: a 6-phase approach for optimizing performance

263 hlm