Evaluation of selection procedures for computerized adaptive testing with polytomous items

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 393-411

  Van Rijn, P W ^a   Eggen, T J H M ^b   Hemker, B T ^b   Sanders, P F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Cito group   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CAT; Decomposition; Fisher information function; GPCM; Item selection; Polytomous items

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036449729     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/014662102237796     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Akkermans, W., & Muraki, E. (1997). Item information and discrimination functions for trinary PCM items. Psychometrika, 62, 569-578.
2. Back, S.-G. (1997). Computerized adaptive testing using the partial credit model for attitude measurement. In M. Wilson, G. Engelhard Jr., & K. Draney (Eds.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 4). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3. Berger, M. P. F., & Veerkamp, W. J. J. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 203-226.
4. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models. In F. M. Lord, & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 395-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5. Chang, H.-H., & Mazzeo, J. (1994). The unique correspondence of the item response function and item category response functions in polytomously scored item response models. Psychometrika, 59, 391-404.
6. Chang, H.-H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global infor- mation approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213229.
7. Donoghue, J. R. (1994). An empirical examination of the IRT information function of polytomously scored reading items under the generalized partial credit model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 295-311.
8. Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.
9. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof.
10. Hemker, B. T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I. W., & Junker, B. W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sum score in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62, 331-347.
11. Huynh, H. (1994). On equivalence between a partial credit item and a set of independent Rasch binary items. Psychometrika, 59, 111-119.
12. Huynh, H. (1996). Decomposition of a Rasch partial credit item into independent binary and indecomposable trinary items. Psychometrika, 61, 31-39.
13. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 241-261.
14. Masters, G. N. (1982), A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
15. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1995). Conceptual notes on models for discrete polytomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 91-100.
16. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
17. Muraki, E. (1993). Information functions of the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 351-363.
18. Priestley, H. A. (1997). Introduction to integration. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
19. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded responses. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
20. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1998). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 57-75.
21. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973977). San Diego, CA.
22. Tang, L. T. (1996, April). A comparison of the tra- ditional maximum information method and the global information method in CAT item selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCME, New York.
23. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567577.
24. Van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
25. Verhelst, N. D., Glas, C. W., & Verstralen, H. H. F. M. (1995). OPLM: Computer program and manual. Arnhem, the Netherlands: CITO.
26. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-450.
27. Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.