Increasing the homogeneity of CAT's item-exposure rates by minimizing or maximizing varied target functions while assembling shadow tests

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 245-269

  Li, Yuan H ^a,c   Schafer, William D ^b  

^a Prince Georges County Public Schools   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c Prince George's County Public Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24644481951     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2005.00013.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
2. 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.
3. Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM. Psychometrika, 46, 443-459.
4. Chang, H. H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
5. Chang, H. H., & Ying, Z. (1999). A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222.
6. Chang, H. H., Qian, J., & Ying, Z. (2001). A Stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing with b blocking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 333-341.
7. Chen, S., Ankenmann, R. D., & Chang, H. H. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 241-255.
8. Cheng, P., & Liou, M. (2000). Estimation of trait level in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 257-265.
9. CTB/McGraw-Hill (1997). Teacher's guide to TerraNova. Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
10. De Ayala, R. J., Schafer, W., & Sava-Bolesta, M. (1995). An investigation of the standard errors for expected a posteriori ability estimates. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 385-405.
11. Dodd, B. G. (1990). The effect of item selection procedure and stepsize on computerized adaptive measurement using the rating scale model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 355-366.
12. Hau, K., & Chang, H. H. (2001). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Should more discriminating items be used first? Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 249-266.
13. Li, Y. H., & Schafer, W. D. (2003). The effect of item selection methods on the variability of CAT's ability estimates when item parameters are contaminated with measurement errors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.
14. LINDO Systems, Inc. (2001). UNDO API: The premier optimization engine [computer program], Chicago, IL: LINDO Systems, Inc.
15. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Meijer, R. R., & Nering, M. L. (1999). Computerized adaptive testing: Overview and introduction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 187-194.
17. Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG-3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models (2nd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
18. Rao, P. S. (2000). Sampling methodologies with applications. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
19. Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 311-327.
20. th Annual Meeting of the Military Testing Association. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 937-977.
21. The MathWorks (2001). MATLAB (Version 6.1): The language of technical computing [computer program], Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc.
22. Theunissen, J. J. J. M. (1985). Binary programming and test design. Psychometrika, 50, 411-420.
23. Theunissen, J. J. J. M. (1986). Optimization algorithms in test design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 381-389.
24. van der Linden, W. J. (2000). Constrained adaptive testing with shadow tests. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 27-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25. van der Linden, W. J., & Boekkooi-Timminga, E. (1989). A maximin model for test design with practical constraints. Psychometrika, 54, 237-247.
26. van der Linden, W. J., & Chang, H. H. (2003). Implementing content constraints in alpha-stratified adaptive testing using a shadow test approach. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 107-120.
27. van der Linden, W. J., & Reese, L. M. (1998). A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259-270.
28. van der Linden, W. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2002). Constraining item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with shadow tests (Research Report No. 02-06). The Netherlands: University of Twente.
29. Veerkamp, W., & Berger, M. (1999). Optimal item discrimination and maximum information for logistic IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 31-40.
30. Wang, T., Hanson, B. A., & Lau, C. A. (1999). Reducing bias in CAT trait estimation: A comparison of approaches. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 263-278.
31. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 4, 427-450.
32. Weiss, D. J., & McBride, J. R. (1984). Bias and information of Bayesian adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 273-285.