MFCT

AcronymDefinition
MFCTMinistry of Federal Capital Territory
MFCTModular Furnace Component Technology
MFCTMarriage, Family, Child Therapist
MFCTMajor Fractional Component Thereof
MFCTMendocino Forest Conservation Trust
MFCTMeter Fix Crossing Time
MFCTMotor Fuel Calibration Trailer
MFCTMicroturbine and Fuel Cell Team
MFCTMissing Functionality (software fault)
References in periodicals archive ?
In this paper, we examined how the properties of TS are affected if a DM rather than an UM underlies the responses on a MFCT.
However, MFCTs have been criticized because traditional scoring methods yield ipsative or partially ipsative scores and typically result in incorrect estimates of reliability, scale intercorrelations, and factor loadings, and in unwarranted (normative) interpretations of the obtained scores (Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2013; Closs, 1996; Hicks, 1970; Johnson, Wood, & Blinkhorn, 1988; Meade, 2004).
Most operational MFCTs have been elaborated with dominance items (Brown & Bartram, 2009; Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2010) as they are based on classical test theory, where item selection criteria advise to discard nonmonotonic (ideal point process) items because they are characterized by low or negative item-total correlations or weak factor loadings.
Apart from the differences between the DM and UM, importantly, the pattern of results turns out to be largely the same for both models: (a) EAP correlate higher with the true scores than TS do; (b) the RANK and MOLE format yielded quite similar results, as the PICK and PAIR formats do, and the results for the former were clearly better than for the latter; (c) MFCTs with more blocks, consisting of a mix of positive and negative items that have high discrimination parameters result in estimates that better predict the true scores; and, finally, (d) the effect of the intra-block variability among the items' difficulties was negligible.