“…The results are provided in Table 4. Using the MAD cutoff values for levels of ICC recovery described earlier, (a) there are two items (11 and 29) with very good recovery, MAD<0.02, (b) 13 items (3,6,7,10,14,16,17,21,24,27,32,35,39) with good recovery, 0.02 ≤ MAD<0.05, (c) seven items (12,13,18,26,28,36,37) with somewhat good recovery, 0.05 ≤ MAD<0.07), (d) six items (2,15,19,22,25,34) with somewhat poor recovery, 0.07 ≤ MAD<0.10, (e) and 11 items (1,4,5,8,9,20,23,30,31,33,38) The presence of items with unsatisfactory (somewhat poor or poor) ICC recovery is not a surprise because it is not realistic to expect that the small number of attributes with relatively high level of generality, used in this study, would be sufficient to fully explain the conditional probabilities of correct response for all test items. Nevertheless, the ICC fit and misfit of STEP-RC items provide information in line with the purpose of the present study; (more details on that matter are provided in the discussion part).…”