Taking the time to improve the validity of low-stakes tests: The effort-monitoring CBT

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 21-30

  Wise, Steven L ^a   Bhola, Dennison S ^a   Yang, Sheng Ta ^a  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer based testing; Motivation; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747290044     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00054.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bhola, D. S. (1994). An investigation to determine whether an algorithm based on response latencies and number of words can be used in a prescribed manner to reduce measurement error. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
2. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
3. Kong, X. J., Wise, S. L., & Bhola, D. S. (in press). Setting the response time threshold parameter to differentiate solution behavior from rapid-guessing behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
4. Kong, X. J., Wise, S. L., Harmes, J. C., & Yang, S. (2006, April). Motivational effects of praise in response time-based feedback: A follow-up study of the effort-monitoring CBT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
5. Schnipke, D. L. (1995, April). Assessing speededness in computer-based tests using item response times. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
6. Schnipke, D. L. (1996, April). How contaminated by guessing are item-parameter estimates and what can be done about it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400276)
7. Schnipke, D. L. (1999). The influence of speededness on item-parameter estimation (Computerized Testing Report No. 96-07). Princeton, NJ: Law School Admission Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467809).
8. Schnipke, D. L., & Scrams, D. J. (1997). Modeling item response times with a two-state mixture model: A new method of measuring speededness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 213-232.
9. Schnipke, D. L., & Scrams, D. J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 237-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Sundre, D. L., & Wise, S. L. (2003, April). 'Motivation filtering': An exploration of the impact of low examinee motivation on the psychometric quality of tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
11. Wise, S. L. (2006). An investigation of the differential effort received by items on a low-stakes, computer-based test. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 95-114.
12. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Examinee motivation in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational, Assessment, 10, 1-18.
13. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2006). An application of item response time: The effort-moderated IRT model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 19-38.
14. Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort; A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 163-183.