The effects of computer administration on scores and item parameter estimates of an IRT-based licensure examination

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 51-63

  Sykes, Robert C ^a   Kyoko, Ito ^b  

^a CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Computer administration; Item response theory; Mode of administration effects; Test equivalence

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040516711     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621697211004     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington DC: Author.
2. Assessment Systems Corporation. (1989). User's manual for the MicroCAT testing system. St. Paul MN: Author.
3. Bejar, I.I. (1980). A procedure for investigating the unidimensionality of achievement tests based on item parameter estimates. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 282-296.
4. Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. E. (1994). The equivalence of Rasch item calibrations and ability estimates across modes of administration. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 122-128). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
5. Brennan, R. L. (1992). The context of context effects. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 225-264.
6. Conover, W. J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.
7. Divgi, D. R. (1986). Determining the sensitivity of CAT-ASVAB scores to changes in item response curves with the medium of administration (Report No. 86-189). Alexandria VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
8. Divgi, D. R., & Stoloff, P. H. (1986). Effect of the medium of administration on ASVAB item response curves (Report No. 86-24). Alexandria VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
9. Elwood, D. L. (1972). Automated WAIS testing correlated with face-to-face WAIS testing: A validity study. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4, 129-137.
10. Green, B. F., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360.
11. Hambleton, R. K., & Murray, L. N. (1983). Some goodness of fit investigations for item response models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 71-94). Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
12. Harris, D. J. (1991). Effects of passage and item scrambling on equating relationships. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 247-256.
13. Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences: Second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
14. Klein, L. W. (1986). Dimensionality of the California Psychiatric Technicians Licensure Examination. Monterey CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
15. Knights, R. M., Richardson, D. H., & McNarry, L. R. (1973). Automated versus clinical administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Coloured Progressive Matrices. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 223-225.
16. Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests (College Board Report No. 88-8). New York: The College Board.
17. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.
18. Rasch, G. (1960/80). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research). Expanded edition (1980), with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
19. Samejima, F. (1977). Weakly parallel tests in latent trait theory with some criticisms of classical test theory. Psychometrika, 42, 193-198.
20. Spray, J. A., Ackerman, T. A., Reckase, M. D., & Carlson, J. E. (1989). Effect of the medium of item presentation on examinee performance and item characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 261-271.
21. Swaminathan, H., & Gifford, J. A. (1979). Estimation of parameters in the three-parameter latent-trait model (Report No. 90). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education, Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluation Research.
22. Whitely, S. E., & Dawis, R. V. (1976). The influence of test content on item difficulty. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 329-337.
23. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design: Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill..
24. Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8, 5-10.
25. Wood, R. L., Wingersky, M. S., & Lord, F. M. (1978). LOGIST: A computer program for estimating examinee ability and item characteristic curve parameters (Res. Memorandum 76-6; revised). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26. Yen, W. M. (1981). Using simulation results to choose a latent trait model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 245-262.