Comparison of Bookmark Difficulty Locations under Different Item Response Models

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 25-47

  Beretvas, S Natasha ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b 1 University Station   (United States)

Author keywords

Bookmark standard setting; Item difficulty; Item mapping; Item response theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0942300557     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621603259903     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Barnes, L. L., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The utility of a modified one-parameter IRT model with small samples. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 143-157.
2. Beretvas, S. N. (2000). To meet or not to meet standard: A comparison of polytomous item response models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
3. Bock, R. D. (1997). A brief history of item response theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 21-31.
4. Bock, R. D., Mislevy, R. J., & Woodson, C. E. M. (1982). The next stage in educational assessment. Educational Researcher, 11, 4-11, 16.
5. Buckendahl, C. W., Smith, R. W., Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and bookmark standard setting methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 253-263.
6. Cizek, G. J. (1996). Setting passing scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15, 20-31.
7. Commission on Student Learning. (1998) Technical information: Washington assessment of student learning. Early grades. Draft.
8. Egan, K. L. (2001). Validity and defensibility of cut scores established by the bookmark standard setting methods. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Houston, TX.
9. Fitzpatrick, A. R., Link, V. B., Yen, W. M., Burket, G. R., Ito, K., & Sykes, R. C. (1996). Scaling performance assessments: A comparison of one-parameter and two-parameter partial credit models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 291-314.
10. Goldstein, L. J. (1971). Analytic number theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Hambleton, R. K. (1983). Application of item response models to criterion-referenced assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 33-44.
12. Huynh, H. (1998). On score locations of binary and partial credit items and their applications to item mapping and criterion-referenced interpretation. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 23, 35-56.
13. Kolstad, A. (1996, April). The response probability convention embedded in reporting prose literacy levels from the 1992 National Literacy Survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
14. Lewis, D. M., Green, D. R., Mitzel, H. C., Baum, K., & Patz, R. J. (2000). The bookmark standard setting procedure: Methodology and recent implementations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15. Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996, June). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Paper presented at the CCSO National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
16. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
17. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
19. Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1996). Parscale: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software.
20. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
21. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). (1999). Washington assessment of student learning: Grade 4 1998 technical report. Olympia, WA: Author.
22. Reckase, M. D. (2000). Survey and evaluation of recently developed procedures for setting standards on educational tests. In Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmation and improvements. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
23. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, 17.
24. Shepard, L. (1980). Standard setting issues and methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 447-467.
25. Skaggs, G., & Tessema, A. (2001, April). Item disordinality with the bookmark standard-setting procedure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
26. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567-577.
27. Van de Vijver, F. J. (1986). The robustness of Rasch estimates. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 45-57.
28. Wolfram, S. (1988). Mathematica. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Research, Inc.
29. Zwick, R., Senturk, D., Wang, J., & Cooper Loomis, S. (2001). An investigation of alternative methods for item mapping in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 15-25.