Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 328-345

  Vispoel, Walter P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032216876     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1998.tb00542.x     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Assessment Systems Corporation (1989). User's manual for MicroCAT. St. Paul, MN: Author.
2. Baghi, H., Gabrys, R., & Ferrara, S. (1991, April). Applications of computer-adaptive testing in Maryland. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
3. Benjamin, L., Cavell, T. A., & Shallenberger, W. R. III (1984). Staying with initial answers on objective tests: Is it a myth? Teaching of Psychology, 11, 133-141.
4. Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 431-444.
5. Crawford, C. (1928). The technique of study. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Crocker, L., & Benson, J. (1980). Does answer changing affect test quality? Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 12, 223-239.
7. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York City: Irvington.
8. Cummings, O. W. (1981). Impact of response changes on objective test characteristics and outcomes for junior high school students. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 14, 32-37.
9. de la Torre, R., & Vispoel, W. P. (1991, April). The development and evaluation of a computerized adaptive testing system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
10. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., & Alnot, S. D. (1986a). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form X-8. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
11. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., & Alnot, S. D. (1986b). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form Y-8. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
12. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., & Lindquist, E. F. (1979a). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form X-7. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
13. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., & Lindquist, E. F. (1979b). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form Y-7. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
14. Ferrara, S., Frances, A., Gilmartin, D., Knott, T., Michaels, H., Pollack, J., Schuder, T., Vaeth, R., & Wise, S. (1996, April). A qualitative study of the information examinees consider during item review on a computer-adaptive test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York City.
15. Gershon, R. C., & Bergstrom, B. (1991, April). Individual differences in computer-adaptive testing: Anxiety, computer literacy and satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
16. Gershon, R. C., & Bergstrom, B. (1995, April), Does cheating on CAT pay: Not. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
17. 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.
18. Kingsbury, G. G. (1996, April). Item review and adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York City.
19. Legg, S. M., & Buhr, D. C. (1992). Computerized adaptive testing with different groups. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 23-27.
20. Lindquist, E. F, & Feldt, L. S. (1972). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form X-6. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
21. Lord, F. M. (1977). A broad-range tailored test of verbal ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 95-100.
22. Lunz, M. E., Bergstrom, B. A., & Wright, B. D. (1992). The effect of review on student ability and test efficiency for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 33-40.
23. Matthews, C. O. (1929). Erroneous first impressions on objective tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 280-286.
24. Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests: A review of the literature (College Board Rep. No. 88-8, ETS RR No. 88-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. McMorris, R. F., DeMers, L. P., & Schwarz, S. P. (1987). Attitudes, behaviors, and reasons for changing responses following answer-changing instruction. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 131-143.
26. McMorris, R. F., & Weiderman, A. H. (1986). Answer changing after instruction on answer changing. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 93-101.
27. Moe, K. C., & Johnson, M. F. (1986). Participants' reactions to computerized testing. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282935.
28. Mueller, D. J., & Wasser, V. (1977). Implications of changing answers on objective test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 9-13.
29. Rocklin, T. (1996). Self-adapted testing: Improving performance by modifying tests instead of examinees. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10, 83-104.
30. Rocklin, T. R., & O'Donnell, A. M. (1987). Self-adapted testing: A performance-improving variant of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 315-319.
31. Rocklin, T. R., O'Donnell, & Holst, P. M. (1995). Effects and underlying mechanisms of self-adapted testing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 103-116.
32. Roos, L. L., Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S. (1997). The role of feedback in self-adapting testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 85-98.
33. Schmitt, F. L., Urry, V. W., & Gugel, J. J. (1978). Computer assisted tailored testing: Examinee reactions and evaluations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 265-273.
34. Schwarz, S. P., McMorris, R. F., & DeMers, L. P. (1991). Reasons for changing answers: An evaluation using personal interviews. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 163-171.
35. Shatz, M. A., & Best, J. B. (1987). Students' reasons for changing answers on objective tests. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 241-242.
36. Smith, M., White, K., & Coop, R. (1979). The effect of item type on the consequences of changing answers on multiple choice tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 203-208.
37. Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
38. Spray, J. A., Ackerman, T. A., Reckase, M. D., & Carl, J. E. (1989). Effect of medium of item presentation on examinee performance and item characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 261-271.
39. Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.
40. Stone, G. E., & Lunz, M. E. (1994). The effect of review on the psychometric characteristics of computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 211-222.
41. Urry, V. W. (1977). Tailored testing: A successful application of latent trait theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 181-196.
42. Vispoel, W. P. (1993). Computerized adaptive and fixed-item versions of the ITED Vocabulary subtest. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 779-788.
43. Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Psychometric characteristics of computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests: The role of answer feedback and test anxiety. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 155-167.
44. Vispoel, W. P., & Coffman, D. D. (1994). Computerized adaptive and self-adapted tests of music listening skills: Psychometric features and motivational benefits. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 25-51.
45. Vispoel, W. P., Rocklin, T. R., & Wang, T. (1994). Individual differences and test administration procedures: A comparison of fixed-item, adaptive, and self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 53, 53-79.
46. Vispoel, W. P., Rocklin, T. R., Wang, T., & Bleiler, T. (in press). Can examinees use a review option to positively bias their scores on a computerized adaptive test? Journal of Educational Measurement.
47. Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T., & Bleiler, T. (1997). The efficiency, reliability, and concurrent validity of adaptive and fixed-item music listening tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 43-63.
48. Vispoel, W. P., Wang, T., de la Torre, R., Bleiler, T., & Dings, J. (1992, April). How review options, administration mode, and anxiety influence scores on computerized vocabulary tests. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. TM018547)
49. Waddell, D. L., & Blankenship, J. C. (1995). Answer changing: A meta-analysis of the prevalence and patterns. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 25, 155-158.
50. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 15-20.
51. Wang, M., & Wingersky, M. (1992). Incorporting post-administration item response revision into a CAT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
52. Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.
53. Wingersky, M. S., Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1982). LOGIST user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
54. Wise, S. L. (1994). Understanding self-adapted testing: The perceived control hypothesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 15-24.
55. Wise, S. L. (1996, April). A critical analysis of the arguments for and against item review in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York City.
56. Wise, S. L., Plake, B. S., Johnson, P. L., & Roos, L. L. (1992). A comparison of self-adapted and algorithmic adaptive achievement tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 329-339.