Desarrollo de Instrumentos de Medición utilizando Modelos de Rasch: Ensayo Metodológico
Resumen
El desarrollo de instrumentos de medición requiere modelos que garanticen precisión, confiabilidad e invariancia en las mediciones. El modelo de Rasch, enmarcado dentro de la Teoría de Respuesta al Ítem (IRT), permite construir escalas unidimensionales y de intervalo, superando limitaciones propias de la Teoría Clásica de la Medición. El presente trabajo se desarrolla como un ensayo metodológico, cuyo propósito es analizar los fundamentos del modelo de Rasch, sus ventajas frente a otros enfoques y su utilidad en el proceso de calibración de ítems y medición de habilidades. A manera de ejemplo ilustrativo, se emplean datos simulados, no provenientes de una aplicación empírica, con el fin de mostrar el procedimiento general de análisis Rasch. Se describen modelos para ítems dicotómicos y politómicos, discutiendo criterios de ajuste, confiabilidad e interpretación mediante mapas ítem–sujeto. Finalmente, se resalta la importancia del modelo de Rasch como marco metodológico para la construcción de evaluaciones educativas más precisas y equitativas.
Descargas
Citas
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.
Andrich, D., & Marais, I. (2019). A course in Rasch measurement theory: Measuring in the educational, social, and health sciences. Springer Nature Singapore.
Andrich, D. (2004). Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care, 42(1 Suppl), I-7–I-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000103528.48582.7c
Andrich, D. (2005). Rasch models. En K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 395–402). Elsevier.
Bond, T. G. y Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. New York: Routledge.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Boone, W. J. (2020). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? Routledge.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer.
Cano, J., Melin, J., Pendrill, L., Stenner, A. J., Fisher, W. P., & Stenner, P. (2016).
Developing a common language for measuring human and social capital. Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 92, 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.06.052. Commons, M. L., & Goodheart, E. A. (2008). The systemic and metasystemic stages of performance. Springer.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant Measurement: Using Rasch Models in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Routledge.
Fisher, W. P. (2006). Meaningfulness, measurement, and metrological networks: Standard units as evolving integrating factors. Measurement, 39(7), 674–679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2006.05.001
Fisher, W. P., Stenner, A. J., Stone, M., & others. (2021). Construct maps and the Wright map revisited. Journal of Applied Measurement, 22(2), 105–127.
Frisbie, D. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. National Council on Measurement in Education.
Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer et al. (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 60–90). Princeton University Press. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage.
Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel–Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85-106.
Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Winsteps.com.
Linacre, J. M., & Smith, E. V. (2003). A proposal for standardization of Rasch measurement. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17(2), 918–919.
Liu, X. (2020). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: A Rasch modeling approach (2nd ed.). Information Age Publishing.
Masters, G. N. (1988). Item discrimination: When more is worse. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(1), 15–29.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11.
Muñiz, J. (2003). Teoría clásica de los test. Madrid: Pirámide.
Osterlind, S. J., & Everson, H. T. (2009). Differential item functioning (2nd ed.). Sage.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research.
Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV (pp. 321–334). Berkeley: University of Chicago Press.
Rasch, G. (1977). On specific objectivity: An attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. The Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 14, 58–93.
Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.(Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research).
Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology, pp. 321–334 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV. Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Rasch, G. (1977). On Specific Objectivity: An attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. The Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 14, 58-93.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.
Traub, R. E., & Rowley, G. L. (1991). Understanding reliability: An instructional module. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME).
Willmore Metivier, J., & Santos Abreu, C. M. (2025). Análisis de Rasch en la medición de competencias matemáticas en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso de la PUCMM. Comunicación presentada en el IV Congreso CEMACYC, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana https://ponencias.ciaem-redumate.org/cemacyc/article/view/487/531
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, M., & Gochyyev, P. (2020). Measurement as a social practice: Constructing measures with construct modeling. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 18(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2020.1711592
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: Mesa Press.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1998). Diseño de mejores pruebas utilizando la técnica de Rasch. México: CENEVAL.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1999). Measurement essentials (2nd ed.). Wide Range.
Derechos de autor 2026 Jeremías Willmore Metivier
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0.
.png)
.png)
1.png)
