Psychometric and psychological effects of item selection and review on computerized testing

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 791-808

  Revuelta, Javier ^a   Ximénez, M Carmen ^a   Olea, Julio ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Computerized adaptive tests; Computerized fixeditem tests; Item review; Item selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141592366     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164403251282     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bergstrom, B., & Lunz, M. (1999). CAT for certification and licensure. In F. Drasgow & J. B. Olson-Buchanan (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 67-91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
2. Bunderson, C. V., Inouye, D. K., & Olsen, J. B. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 367-407). New York: Macmillan.
3. 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.
4. Lunz, M. A., & Bergstrom, B. A. (1994). An empirical study of computerized adaptive test administration conditions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 251-263.
5. Lunz, M. A., 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.
6. Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., Revuelta, J., & Belchf, J. (1996). Propiedades psicométricas de un test adaptativo de vocabulario inglés [Psychometric properties of a CAT of English vocabulary]. Estudios de Psicologta, 55, 61-73.
7. Olea, J., Revuelta, J., Ximénez, M. C., & Abad, F. J. (2000). Psychometric and psychological effects of review on computerized fixed and adaptive tests. Psicológica, 21, 157-173.
8. Ponsoda, V., Olea, J., & Revuelta, J. (1994). ADTEST: A computer adaptive test based on the maximum information principle. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 680-686.
9. Ponsoda, V., Olea, J., Rodríguez, M. S., & Revuelta, J. (1999). The effects of test difficulty manipulation in computerized adaptive testing and self-adapted testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 167-184.
10. Ponsoda, V., Wise, S., Olea, J., & Revuelta, J. (1997). An investigation of self-adapted testing in a Spanish high school population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 210-221.
11. Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1997). Una solución a la estimación inicial en los tests adaptativos informatizados. [A solution to initial estimation in CATs]. Revista Electrónica de Metodologia Aplicada, 2, 1-6.
12. Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 311-327.
13. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spanish adaptation by TEA ediciones S.A. (1988, 3rd ed.).
14. Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.
15. 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.
16. Sykes, R. C., & Ito, K. (1997). The effects of computer administration on scores and item parameter estimates of an IRT-based licensure examination. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 51-63.
17. Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Reviewing and changing answers on computer-adaptive and self-adaptive vocabulary tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 328-345.
18. Vispoel, W. P. (2000). Reviewing and changing answers on computerized fixed-item vocabulary tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 371-384.
19. Vispoel, W. P., Hendrickson, A. B., & Bleiler, T. (2000). Limiting answer review and change on computer adaptive vocabulary tests: Psychometric and attitudinal results. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 21-38.
20. 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.
21. 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. TM018547)
22. Waddell, D. L., & Blankenship, J. C. (1995). Answer changing: A meta-analysis of the prevalence and patterns. Journal of Continuing Education and Nursing, 25, 155-158.
23. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 15-20.
24. Wise, S. L. (1994). Understanding self-adapted testing: The perceived control hypothesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(1), 15-24.
25. Wise, S. L. (1995, August). Item review and answer changing in computerized adaptive tests. Paper presented at the Third European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Trier, Germany.
26. Wise, S. L., Freeman, S. A., Finney, S. J., Enders, C. K., & Severance, D. D. (1997, April). The accuracy of examinee judgements of relative item difficulty: Implications for computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.