A Scientometric Review of Rasch Measurement: The Rise and Progress of a Specialty

Abstract

A recent review of the literature concluded that Rasch measurement is an influential approach in psychometric modeling. Despite the major contributions of Rasch measurement to the growth of scientific research across various fields, there is currently no research on the trends and evolution of Rasch measurement research. The present study used co-citation techniques and a multiple perspectives approach to investigate 5,365 publications on Rasch measurement between 01 January 1972 and 03 May 2019 and their 108,339 unique references downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS). Several methods of network development involving visualization and text-mining were used to analyze these data: author co-citation analysis (ACA), document co-citation analysis (DCA), journal author co-citation analysis (JCA), and keyword analysis. In addition, to investigate the inter-domain trends that link the Rasch measurement specialty to other specialties, we used a dual-map overlay to investigate specialty-to-specialty connections. Influential authors, publications, journals, and keywords were identified. Multiple research frontiers or sub-specialties were detected and the major ones were reviewed, including “visual function questionnaires”, “non-parametric item response theory”, “valid measures (validity)”, “latent class models”, and “many-facet Rasch model”. One of the outstanding patterns identified was the dominance and impact of publications written for general groups of practitioners and researchers. In personal communications, the authors of these publications stressed their mission as being “teachers” who aim to promote Rasch measurement as a conceptual model with real-world applications. Based on these findings, we propose that sociocultural and ethnographic factors have a huge capacity to influence fields of science and should be considered in future investigations of psychometrics and measurement. As the first scientometric review of the Rasch measurement specialty, this study will be of interest to researchers, graduate students, and professors seeking to identify research trends, topics, major publications, and influential scholars.

A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research

“…Since its emergence, Rasch measurement has made significant contributions to diverse fields of research (Aryadoust et al, 2019). However, there has not been any comprehensive review of the application of Rasch measurement in language assessment.…”

“…Rasch measurement rarely came into the picture until the collaboration between Georg Rasch and Benjamin Wright, an American advocate of Rasch's method. Subsequently, the start of annual courses and conferences on the theory and practices of Rasch measurement further propagated interest in the method (see Aryadoust, Tan, & Ng, 2019). According to McNamara and Knoch (2012), these events spurred interest among psychometric experts in major centers, such as the Central Institute for Test Development (CITO) in the Netherlands, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the USA, the National Foundation of Educational Research (NFER) in the UK, and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), and Rasch measurement began to be adopted on a wider scale.…”

A Scientometric Review of Alexithymia: Mapping Thematic and Disciplinary Shifts in Half a Century of Research

“…The bottom-up approach used in scientometric reviews has already been proved successful to assess trends and the evolution of assessment instruments or techniques developed in narrow disciplinary domains such as linguistics and psychology ( 46 , 47 ).…”

A Scientometric Approach to Review the Role of the Medial Preoptic Area (MPOA) in Parental Behavior

“…Structural metrics include modularity Q, silhouette score and betweenness centrality. Modularity Q is an index that ranges from 0 to 1 and indicates the extent to which a network is divisible into single modules or clusters [27]. The homogeneity of these modules is measured using the silhouette score, with values ranging from -1 to 1.…”