Statistics and Probability Commons^™

Use Of Research Tradition And Design In Program Evaluation: An Explanatory Mixed Methods Study Of Practitioners’ Methodological Choices, Margaret Schultz Patel

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

The goal of this explanatory sequential mixed method study was to assess whether there were observable trends, associations, or group differences in evaluation methodology by settings and content area in published evaluations from the past ten years (quantitative), to illuminate how evaluation practitioners selected these methodologies (qualitative), and assess how emergent findings from each phase fit together or helped contextualize each other. In this study, methodology was operationalized as research tradition and method was operationalized as research design. For phase one (quantitative), a systematized ten-year review of five peer-reviewed evaluation journals was conducted and coded by journal, research tradition, research …

Assessing Robustness Of The Rasch Mixture Model To Detect Differential Item Functioning - A Monte Carlo Simulation Study, Jinjin Huang

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Measurement invariance is crucial for an effective and valid measure of a construct. Invariance holds when the latent trait varies consistently across subgroups; in other words, the mean differences among subgroups are only due to true latent ability differences. Differential item functioning (DIF) occurs when measurement invariance is violated. There are two kinds of traditional tools for DIF detection: non-parametric methods and parametric methods. Mantel Haenszel (MH), SIBTEST, and standardization are examples of non-parametric DIF detection methods. The majority of parametric DIF detection methods are item response theory (IRT) based. Both non-parametric methods and parametric methods compare differences among subgroups …

Measuring Human Rights: A Review Essay, David L. Richards

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

Measuring Human Rights. By Todd Landman & Edzia Carvalho. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. 163pp.

A Reply To David Richards’ Review Of Measuring Human Rights, Todd Landman, Edzia Carvalho

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Professor Richards highlights, in his generous review of our book Measuring Human Rights that one of the aims of the book is to bring to the forefront the importance of conceptualization before operationalization – that conceptual clarity (or lack of it) is at the heart of the problems concerning the measurement of human rights. He draws out three key issues from the book as the springboard for further discussion on measurement of the concept – a) the “Respect, Protect and Fulfill” (RPF) framework, b) the lack of reliable data sources, and c) the conceptual links between human rights, human development, …

Addressing The Gaps—Promise And Performance, Synthesis And Purity, Large-N And Small-N: A Response To Moore, Todd Landman

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A response to:

Moore, W. (2006). Synthesis v. purity and large-N studies: How might we assess the gap between promise and performance? Human Rights, Human Welfare, 6(1).