An Alternative Method for Scoring Adaptive Tests

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 365-389

  Stocking, Martha L ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive test scores; Adaptive testing; IRT equating; IRT scoring; Test scores

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030371990     PISSN: 10769986     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/10769986021004365     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bejar, I., & Wingersky, M. S. (1982). A study of pre-equating based on item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 309-325.
2. Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1983). Practical considerations regarding the use of item response theory to equate tests. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 175-195). Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
3. Cook, L. L., & Petersen, N. S. (1987). Problems related to the use of conventional and item response theory equating methods in less than optimal circumstances. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 225-244.
4. Cook, L. L., Petersen, N. S., & Stocking, M. L. (1983). IRT versus conventional equating methods: A comparative study in scale stability. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 136-156.
5. Dorans, N. J. (1990). Scaling and equating. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 137-160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Eignor, D. R., Cook, L. L., & Stocking, M. L. (1990). Simulation results of effects on linear and curvilinear observed and true score equating procedures of matching on a fallible criterion. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 37-52.
7. Eignor, D. R., Way, W. D., Stocking, M. L., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (Research Rep. 93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Green, B. F., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360.
9. Jacobson, R. L. (1993, September 13). New computer technique seen producing a revolution in testing. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A22.
10. Killcross, M. C. (1976). A review of research in tailored testing (Rep. No. 9/76). Franborough, Hants, England: Ministry of Defense, Army Personnel Research Establishment.
11. Lawrence, I., & Dorans, N. J. (1990). Effect on equating results of matching samples on an anchor test. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 9-36.
12. Lord, F. M. (1977). A broad-range tailored test of verbal ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 95-100.
13. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Lord, F. M. (1983). Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, of their variance and of their parallel forms reliability. Psychometrika, 48, 233-243.
15. McBride, J. R., & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 223-236). New York: Academic Press.
16. Mislevy, R. J. (1984). Estimating latent distributions. Psychometrika, 49, 359-381.
17. Mislevy, R. J. (1986). Bayes modal estimation in item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 177-195.
18. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1983). BILOG: Item and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
19. O'Neill, K., Folk, V., & Li, M.-Y. (1993). Report on the pretest calibration study for the computer-based academic skills assessments of the Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers (TM). Unpublished manuscript, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
20. Owen, R. J. (1975). A Bayesian sequential procedure for quantal response in the context of adaptive mental testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 351-356.
21. Schaeffer, G., Steffen, M., & Golub-Smith, M. (1993). Introduction of a computer adaptive GRE general test (Research Rep. 93-57). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
22. Stocking, M. L. (1987). Two simulated feasibility studies in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36, 263-277.
23. Stocking, M. L. (1992). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (Research Rep. 93-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
25. Swanson, L., & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151-166.
26. Vale, C. D. (1981, April). Implementing the computerized adaptive test: What the computer can do for you. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
27. Wainer, H. (Ed.). (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Wainer, H., Thissen, D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1990). Testing algorithms. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 103-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Ward, W. C. (1988). The College Board computerized placement tests: An application of computerized adaptive testing. Machine-Mediated Learning, 2, 217-282.
30. Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.
31. Weiss, D. J. (1974). Strategies of adaptive ability measurement (Research Rep. 74-5). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Psychometric Methods Program.
32. Wingersky, M. S. (1983). LOGIST: A program for computing maximum likelihood procedures for logistic test models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 45-56). Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
33. Wingersky, M. S., & Lord, F. M. (1984). An investigation of methods for reducing sampling error in certain IRT procedures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 347-364.
34. Yen, W. (1983). Use of the three-parameter model in the development of a standardized achievement test. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 125-141). Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.