Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-f9j5r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T11:38:34.369Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Computer Routines for the Calculation of the Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ernest C. Froemel
Ernest C. Froemel*
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In calculations of the discriminating-power parameter of the normal ogive model, Bock and Lieberman compared estimates derived from their maximum-likelihood solution with those derived from the heuristic solution. The two sets of estimates were in excellent agreement provided the heuristic solution used accurate tetrachoric correlation coefficients. Three computer methods for the calculation of the tetrachoric correlation were examined for accuracy and speed. The routine by Saunders was identified as an acceptably accurate method for calculating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient.

Keywords

Public PolicyComputer MethodExcellent AgreementStatistical TheoryAccurate Method
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 165 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported in part by NSF Grant E 1930 to The University of Chicago. The author wishes to thank Dr. David R. Saunders and Dr. Ledyard Tucker for the use of their original materials and Dr. R. Darrell Bock for his many helpful suggestions and his ready counsel throughout the course of this investigation.

References

Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I.. Handbook of mathematical functions. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 1967, 966–970.Google Scholar
Bock, R. D., & Lieberman, M., Fitting a response model for n dichotomous items. Psychometrika, 1970. (In press).Google Scholar
Buhler, R., Tetrachoric program in P-stat, version 45 source listing. (Generated from P-stat program tape at The University of Chicago Computation Center, May 17, 1968). pp. 143–148.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. The nature of the data or how to choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 1961, 26, 47–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellan, N. On the estimation of the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellan, N., & Link, S. Tetrachoric correlation program for the IBM 709/7090. Behavioral Science, 1964, 9, 292–292.Google Scholar
Charap, M., Tetrachoric correlation. (An Educational Testing Service program write-up, dated December 1957).Google Scholar
Kuki, H., Mathematical functions. (The University of Chicago Computation Center report, 1966). p. 103.Google Scholar
Owen, D. Tables for computing bivariate normal probabilities. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1956, 27, 1075–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. VII: On the correlation of characters not quantitatively measurable. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 1901, 195A, 1–47.Google Scholar
Tucker, L., Notes on the approximation of tetrachoric correlation. (Unpublished notes, dated April 4, 1960).Google Scholar
U. S. Bureau of Standards. Tables of the bivariate normal distribution function and related functions, 1956, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar