Limiting answer review and change on computerized adaptive vocabulary tests: Psychometric and attitudinal results

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 21-38

  Vispoel, Walter P ^b   Hendrickson, Amy B ^b   Bleiler, Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034146413     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01074.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 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.
2. Feldt, L. S., Forsyth, R. A., Ansley, T. N., & Alnot, S. D. with Bray, G. B. & Keckere, E. D. (1993). Iowa Test of Educational Development: Form L. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Mills, C. N. (1999). Development and introduction of a computer adaptive Graduate Records Examinations General Test. In F. Drasgow & J. B. Olson-Buchanan (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 117-135). Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Preliminary professional manual for the Test Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
9. Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.
10. 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.
11. Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 328-345.
12. Vispoel, W. P (in press). Reviewing and changing answers on computerized fixed-item vocabulary tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
13. Vispoel, W. P., Rocklin, T. R., Wang, T., & Bleiler, T. (1999). Can examinees use a review option to obtain positively biased ability estimates on a computerized adaptive test? Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 141-157.
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Wingersky, M. S., Barton, M. A., & Lord, F. M. (1982). LOGIST user's guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 15-20.
19. 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.
20. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. (1979). Best test design. Chicago: MESA Press.