Flawed items in computerized adaptive testing

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 79-96

  Potenza, Maria T ^a   Stocking, Martha L ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031287479     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1997.tb00508.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Eignor, D. R., Way, W. D., Stocking, M. L., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case Studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (Research Rep. No. 93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
3. 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.
4. Hambleton, R. K., & Rovinelli, R. (1973). A Fortran IV program for generating examinee response data from logistic test models. Behavioral Science, 17, 73-74.
5. Lord, F. M. (1977). A broad-range tailored test of verbal ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 95-100.
6. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Mislevy, R. J. (1984). Estimating latent distributions. Psychometrika, 49, 359-381.
8. Schaeffer, G. A., Steffen, M., Golub-Smith, M. L., Mills C. N., & Durso, R. (1995). The introduction and comparability of the computer-adaptive GRE General Test (Research Rep. No. RR-95-20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Sheehan, K., & Lewis, C. (1992). Computerized mastery testing with nonequivalent testlets. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 65-76.
10. Stocking, M. L. (1993). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (Research Rep. No. 93-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 227-292.
12. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973-977). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Develpment Center.
13. Wainer, H. (1983). Pyramid power: Searching for an error in test scoring with 830,000 helpers. The American Statistician, 37, 87-91.
14. Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. 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. Vancouver, BC: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.