Can examinees use a review option to obtain positively biased ability estimates on a computerized adaptive test?

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 141-157

  Vispoel, Walter P ^b   Rocklin, Thomas R ^b   Wang, Tianyou ^c   Bleiler, Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c American College Testing Incorporated   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033147646     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00551.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 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.
2. Benjamin, L., Cavell, T. A., & Schallenberger, W. R. III (1984). Staying with initial answers on obvjective tests: Is it a myth? Teaching of Psychology, 11, 133-141.
3. Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J., (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 431-444.
4. Boo, J. (1997). Computerized versus paper-and-pencil assessment of educational development: Score comparability and examinee preferences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Iowa.
5. Ferrara, S., Frances, A., Gilamartin, 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 of Measurement in Education, New York City.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., Ansley, T., & Alnot, S. D. (1986b). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form Y-8. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
10. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., Ansley, T., & Alnot, S. D. (1994). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form K. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
11. Gershon, R. C., & Bergstrom, B. (1991, April). Individual differences in computer-adaptive testing: Anxiety computer literacy and satisfaction. Paper presented at the manual meeting of the American Educationa Research Association, Chicago.'
12. Gershon, R. C., & Bergstrom, B. (1995, April). Does cheating on CAT pay: Not. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco.
13. Kingsbury, G. G. (1996, April). Item review and adaptive teasting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York City.
14. Legg, S. M., & Burg, D. C. (1992). Computerized adaptive testing with different groups. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 23-27.
15. Lindquist, E. F., & Feldt, L. S. (1972). Iowa Tests of Educational Development: Form X-6 Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
16. Lord, F. M., (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Lord, F. M., (1983). Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, their variance, and of their parallel-forms reliability. Psychometrika, 48, 233-245.
18. Lord, F. M., (1986). Maximun likelihood and Bayesian parameter estimation in item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 157-162.
19. 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.
20. Moe, K. C., & Johnson, M. F. (1988). Participant's reactions to computerized testing. Educational Computing Ressearch, 4, 79-86.
21. 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.
22. Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.
23. Stone, G. E., & Lunz, M. E. (1994). The effect of review on the psychometric characteristicss of computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 211-222.
24. Vispoel, W. P. (1993). Computerized adaptive and fixed-item versions of the ITED Vocabulary subtest. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 779-788.
25. Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Reviewing and changing answer on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 328-345.
26. Vispoel, W. P., Rocklin, T. R. & Wang, T. (1994). Individual differences and test administration procedures: A comparison of fixed-item, computerized-adaptive, and self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 53, 53-79.
27. 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. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 346 161)
28. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 15-20.
29. 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.
30. Wang, M., & Wingersky, M. (1992, April). Incorporating post-administration item response revision into a CAT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
31. Wang, T., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estimation methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 109-135.
32. Wingersky, M. S., Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1982). LOGlST user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
33. 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.
34. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.