Mutual information item selection in adaptive classification testing

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 41-58

  Weissman, Alexander ^a,b  

^a Law School Admission Council   (United States)

^b Psychometric Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Classification; Computerized adaptive testing; Item selection; Mutual information; Sequential probability ratio test

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846076080     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406288164     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Chang, H.-H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
2. Chen, S.-Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Chang, H.-H. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 241-255.
3. Cheng, P. E., & Liou, M. (2000). Estimation of trait level in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 257-265.
4. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: John Wiley.
5. Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23 (3). 249-261.
6. Eggen, T. J. H. M., & Straetmans, G. J. J. M. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing for classifying examinees into three categories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 (5). 713-734.
7. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. McGlohen, M. K., Chang, H.-H., & Wills, J. T. (2004, April). Combining computer adaptive testing technology with cognitively diagnostic assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
9. Reckase, M. D. (1983). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237-255). New York: Academic Press.
10. Rudner, L. M. (2002, April). An examination of decision-theory adaptive testing procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
11. Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D. (1994, April). The selection of test items for decision making with a computerized adaptive test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
12. Spray, J. A., & Reckase, M. D. (1996). Comparison of SPRT and sequential Bayes procedures for classifying examinees into two categories using a computerized test. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21 (4). 405-414.
13. Stone, C. A., Weissman, A., & Lane, S. (2005). Consistency of student proficiency classifications under competing IRT models for a state assessment program. Educational Assessment, 10 (2). 125-146.
14. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63 (2). 201-216.
15. Veerkamp, W. J. J., & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 203-226.
16. Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: John Wiley.
17. Xu, X., Chang, H.-H., & Douglas, J. (2003, April). A simulation study to compare CAT strategies for cognitive diagnosis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.