The effect of item parameter drift on examinee ability estimates

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 77-87

  Wells, Craig S ^a,b   Subkoviak, Michael J ^a,b   Serlin, Ronald C ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Department of Educational Psychology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Ability estimates; DIP; Invariance property; Item bias; Item parameter drift; Item response theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036111447     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621602261005     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Baker, F. B. (1986). GENIRV: Computer program to generating item responses [Computer program]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of Educational Psychology, Laboratory of Experimental Design.
2. Baker, F. B. (1990). EQUATE: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory [Computer program]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Laboratory of Experimental Design.
3. Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
4. Bock, R., Muraki, E., & Pfeiffenberger, W. (1988). Item pool maintenance in the presence of item parameter drift. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 275-285.
5. Chan, K-Y., Drasgow, F., & Sawin, L. L. (1999). What is the shelf life of a test? The effect of time on psychometrics of a cognitive ability test battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 610-619.
6. Cohen, A. S. (1992). Technical manual: University of Wisconsin Placement Testing Program. Madison, WI: Center for Placement Testing.
7. Cook, L. L., Eignor, D. R., & Taft, H. L. (1988). A comparative study of the effects of recency of instruction on the stability of IRT and conventional item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 31-45.
8. Goldstein, H. (1983). Measuring changes in educational attainment over time: Problems and possibilities. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 369-377.
9. Haley, D. C. (1952). Estimation of the dosage mortality relationship when the dose is subject to error (Technical Report No. 15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory.
10. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
11. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, J. (1991). Item response theory. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Mislevy, R. J. (1982, March). Five steps toward controlling item parameter drift. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
14. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer program]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
15. Stocking, M., & Lord, F. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
16. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (1991). Use of restricted item response theory models for examining the stability of item parameter estimates over time. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 125-141.