Items ranked from easiest to most difficult are identical under CTT and MFRM¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2021: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? The ten items rank identically from easiest to most difficult (I2, I3, I1, I4, I7, I6=I8, I10, I5, I9) in both CTT and MFRM. → Ilhan 2018
Evidence¶
Ilhan 2018¶
Ilhan, M., & Guler, N. (2018). A Comparison of Difficulty Indices Calculated for Open-Ended Items According to Classical Test Theory and Many Facet Rasch Model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 75. doi:10.14689/ejer.2018.75.6
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Ranking comparison based on the difficulty indices in Table 3, computed from the same crossed-design dataset (375 students, 3 raters, 10 open-ended items). The article reports "a complete agreement between the item difficulties".
"As is clear from Tab le 3, the items are ranked from easiest to most difficult as I2, I3, I1, I4, I7, I6=I8, I10, I5 and I9 in both CTT and MFRM. Thus, it may be said that there is a complete agreement between the item difficulties calculated according to both theories."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- CTT and MFRM yield similar item difficulty results for open-ended questions regardless of crossed or nested design — a broader claim this one bears on
- CTT and MFRM yield a positive, perfect correlation between item difficulty indices for open-ended items under a crossed design — related
- Scorer severity and standard difficulty were statistically adjusted using Many-Facet Rasch analysis before assignment and work measures were compared — related
- Australian and Malaysian Muslim learners ranked discord items differently, with Australian students most resistant to anti-science statements and most accepting of divine-cause statements — related
- CTT-based quiz difficulty rankings are validated by IRT analysis with near-perfect rank correlation — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
identical-item-difficulty-ranking-ctt-mfrm |
title |
Items ranked from easiest to most difficult are identical under CTT and MFRM |
description |
Items ranked from easiest to most difficult are identical under CTT and MFRM |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
recheck_by |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ilhan-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.