Effects of estimation bias on multiple-category classification with an IRT-based adaptive classification procedure

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 545-564

  Yang, Xiangdong ^a,b   Poggio, John C ^a   Glasnapp, Douglas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b CETE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ability estimator; Adaptive classification procedure; Computerized adaptive mastery testing (CAMT); Estimation bias; Multiple category classification

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745957598     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164405284031     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
2. Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment.
3. De Ayala, R. J., Schafer, W. D., & Sava-Bolesta, M. (1995). An investigation of the standard errors of expected a posteriori ability estimates. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 385 - 405.
4. Kingsbury, G. G., & Weiss, D. J. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 258-283). New York: Academic Press.
5. Lewis, C., & Sheehan, K. M. (1990). Using Bayesian decision theory to design a computerized mastery test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 367-386.
6. Lord,F. M. (1983). Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, their variance, and of their parallel-formsreliability. Psychometrika, 48, 233-245.
7. Lord, F. M. (1984). Maximum likelihood and Bayesian parameter estimation in item response theory (Research Rep. No. RR-84-30-ONR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Owen, R. J. (1975). A Bayesian sequential procedure for quantal response in the context of adaptive mental testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 351-356.
9. Reckase, M. D. (1983). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 237-255). New York: Academic Press.
10. Schervish, M. J. (1995). Theory of statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Smith, R. L., & Lewis, C. (1995). A Bayesian computerized mastery model with multiple cut scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
12. Spray, J. (1993). Multiple-category classification using a sequential probability ratio test (ACT Research Report Series No. 93-7). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
13. Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: John Wiley.
14. Wang, T., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estimation methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 109-135.
15. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-450.
16. Weiss, D. J., & McBride, J. R. (1984). Bias and information of Bayesian adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 273-285.
17. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items [Computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc.