Talk:Rasch model

message: "In general, the probability of a person responding correctly to a question with difficulty lower than that person's location is greater than 0.5, while the probability of responding correctly to a question with difficulty greater than the person's location is less than 0.5"
dichotomous is two choices, right? how can the probability fall below .5? surely no test is designed so that an ignorant choice scores less than random choice? am I missing something?
:a dichotomous variable can take on two values; e.g. 0,1. when people mark something correct or incorrect the score is a dichotomous variable. an example is a mathematics problem - there are many ways to get it wrong but (often) only one way to get it right, and the score of 0 or 1 is used to denote an incorrect or correct response. the dichotomy is right vs wrong. dichotomous does not imply two choices are available to a respondent in a multiple choice format. Holon 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dichotomous data 

message: From the present text: "The Rasch model for dichotomous data is often regarded as an item response theory (IRT) model with one item parameter. However, rather than being a particular IRT model, proponents [see Wikipedia:WEASEL] of the model regard it as a model that possesses a property which distinguishes it from IRT models."
If we accepted this statement, then we would need to rewrite the article item response theory, redefining IRT models in quite a twisted way, excluding just the Rasch model from the otherwise open set of possible models. And all this for no other reason than an unexplained view of unnamed "proponents". Seems a very bad idea to me. -- Frau Holle (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rasch model is a special IRT model 

message: I was going to revert this edit but I wonder if the editor has a point. Should the image simply be removed?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to above, I've now simply removed the image as it seems pointless. It doesn't add meaning to the article.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scales image

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted 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 these 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. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles