Talk:Classical test theory

Cleanup
I tried to clean up the article. The description of the basic definition is correct and no longer redundant. However, it may leave too much unsaid (e.g., nothing is said about expectation or covariance of the error scores). The material objected to by Chris53516 is now completely gone. I tried to clarify that this entire article is described in the works cited at the end; I think this should be sufficient (rather than citing these works repeatedly for each individual assertion within the body of the article).

A question is how much to write about reliability? On the one hand, CTT is basically a theory about how to compute reliability; on the other hand, there exists an article on reliability. I think the amount here is probably good. Other results, like Spearman's disattenuation formula or the S-B Prophesy Formula are not mentioned. I favor reporting all the results, similar to the presentation in Chapter 3 of Allen & Yen. Amead (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Equations
These equations look terrible. Can anyone help me make them look better?


 * Someone should be able to make them in TeX. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Content
The content of this page sounds like it is taken from a source, which may constitute plagiarism and violate copyright laws. What are the sources of the information on this page, and who wrote it? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon inspection, these edits show that much of the content was added by an unregistered user. Where did this content come from? I have strong reason to believe that it may be plagiarized. Can anyone help me decide if it is or is not? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the content of this page omits mention of an important and related psychometric tool called "Knowledge Space Theory," or KST, which has been demonstrated to be a highly predictive tool for determining whether students are likely to succeed in specific math and science courses (3rd grade through Pre-calculus and Trigonometry, and General Chemistry). I would be happy to explain, but this link will get you started if you want to delve in:

http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks/Science_Behind_ALEKS.pdf

The basic idea is fairly simple, and KST is only practical after the invention of the personal computer. Also, since it's more specialized, it isn't as well known as IRT, but in the disciplines KST has been applied to thus far, it is vastly faster, better, cheaper, and more effective to use than IRT or CTT.

For example, I give UT Austin's very successful Math and Chemistry Placement process:

http://cns.utexas.edu/students/incoming-students/placement — Preceding unsigned comment added by KST Salesman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Appellation
Do we need to use this word in the first 2 paragraphs? Not everyone will understand it. Can we use "designation" instead? --1000Faces (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)