Validity of Item Selection: A Comparison of Automated Computerized Adaptive and Manual Paper and Pencil Examinations

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 152-157

  Lunz, Mary E ^a   Deville, Craig W ^b  

^a American Society for Clinical Pathology   (United States)

^b Drake Prometric   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030502932     PISSN: 10401334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10401339609539786     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Weiss D, Betz N. Ability measurement: Conventional or adaptive? (Research Rep. 73-1). Psychometric Methods Program University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN: Prepared under contract #N00014-67-A-0113-0029 with the Personnel and Training Research Programs, Psychological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, 1973.
2. Stocking ML, Swanson L, Pearlman M. Application of an automated item selection method to real data. Applied Psychological Measurement 1993;17:167-76.
3. Wright BD, Stone M. Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press, 1979.
4. Stahl JA, Lunz ME. Assessing the extent of overlap of items among computerized adaptive tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, April 1993.
5. Martin J, McBride J, Weiss D. Reliability and validity of adaptive and conventional tests in a military recruit population (Research Rep. 83-1) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometric Methods Program, Computerized Adaptive Testing Laboratory, 1983.
6. Lunz ME, Bergstrom BA. Comparability of decisions for computer adaptive and written examinations. Journal of Allied Health 1991;20:15-23.
7. Bergstrom BA, Stahl JA. Assessing existing item bank depth for computer adaptive tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, April 1992.