Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.55 754-763 June 2012. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0216)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Materials
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hoffman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rice, M. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Research Note

Linking Outcomes From Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Forms Using Item Response Models

Lesa Hoffmana
Jonathan Templinb
Mabel L. Ricec
a University of Nebraska—Lincoln
b University of Georgia, Athens
c University of Kansas, Lawrence

Correspondence to Lesa Hoffman: lhoffman2{at}unl.edu

Purpose: The present work describes how vocabulary ability as assessed by 3 different forms of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) can be placed on a common latent metric through item response theory (IRT) modeling, by which valid comparisons of ability between samples or over time can then be made.

Method: Responses from 2,625 cases in a longitudinal study of 697 persons for 459 unique PPVT items (175 items from Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised [PPVT–R] Form M [Dunn & Dunn, 1981], 201 items from Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—3 [PPVT–3] Form A [Dunn & Dunn, 1997], and 83 items from PPVT–3 Form B [Dunn & Dunn, 1997]) were analyzed using a 2-parameter logistic IRT model.

Results: The test forms each covered approximately ±3 SDs of vocabulary ability with high reliability. Some differences between item sets in item difficulty and discrimination were found between the PPVT–3 Forms A and B.

Conclusions: Comparable estimates of vocabulary ability obtained from different test forms can be created through IRT modeling. The authors have also written a freely available SAS program that uses the obtained item parameters to provide IRT ability estimates given item responses to any of the 3 forms. This scoring resource will allow others with existing PPVT data to benefit from this work as well.

KEY WORDS: item response models, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), item response theory (IRT)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?