Talk:Classical test theory

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

Equations

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

Someone should be able to make them in TeX. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]