Graphical modeling: A new response type for measuring the qualitative component of mathematical reasoning

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 303-322

  Bennett, Randy Elliot ^a   Morley, Mary ^a   Quardt, Dennis ^a   Rock, Donald A ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034414899     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15324818AME1303_5     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Baird, L. L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance (Research Monograph No. 7). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
2. Bennett, R. E., Morley, M., & Quardt, D. (in press). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized-adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement.
3. Bennett, R. E., Morley, M., Quardt, D., Rock, D. A., Singley, M. K., Katz, I. R., & Nhouyvanisvong, A. (1999). Psychometric and cognitive functioning of an under-determined computer-based response type for quantitative reasoning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 233-252.
4. Braswell, J., & Kupin, J. (1993). Item formats for assessment in mathematics. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement (pp. 167-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Bridgeman, B. (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 253-271.
6. Educational Testing Service. (1992). GRE 1992-93 guide to the use of the Graduate Record Examinations program. Princeton, NJ: Author.
7. Educational Testing Service. (1998). GRE Graduate Record Examinations 1998-1999 information and registration bulletin [Brochure]. Princeton, NJ: Author.
8. Enright, M. K., Morley, M., & Sheehan, K. (1999). Items by design: The impact of systematic feature variation on item statistical characteristics (GRE Rep. No. 95-15R). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Enright, M. K., Rock, D. A., & Bennett, R. E. (1999). Improving measurement for graduate admissions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 250-267.
10. Glaser, R. (1991). Expertise and assessment. In M. C. Wittrock & E. L. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 17-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Glass, A. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1986). Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
12. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
13. Nhouyvanisvong, A., Katz, I. R., & Singley, M. K. (1997, March). Toward a unified model of problem solving in well-determined and under-determined algebra word problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
14. Sebrechts, M. M., Enright, M., Bennett, R. E., & Martin, K. (1996). Using algebra word problems to assess quantitative ability: Attributes, strategies, and errors. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 285-343.
15. Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181-201.
16. Stricker, L. J., & Rock, D. A. (1996). Measuring accomplishments: Pseudoipsativity, quantity vs. quality, and dimensionality (Research Rep. 96-8). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (Eds.). (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.