Bookmark locations and item response model selection in the presence of local item dependence

Journal of Applied Measurement

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 65-83

  Skaggs, Gary ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

ACHIEVEMENT; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 34247226107     PISSN: 15297713     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. nd ed., pp. 508-600). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
2. Beretvas, S. N. (2004). Comparison of bookmark difficulty locations under different item response models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28(1), 25-47.
3. Buckendahl, C. W., Smith, R. W., Impara, J. C., and Plake, B. S. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and bookmark standard setting methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(3), 253-263.
4. Chen, W.-H. (1998). IRTNEW: A computer program for the detection of LID [Computer software and manual]. Chapel Hill, NC: L.L. Thurstone Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
5. Chen, W. H., and Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289.
6. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Standard setting guidelines. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(1), 12-21.
7. Cizek, G. J., Bunch, M. B., and Koons, H. (2004). An NCME instructional module on setting performance standards: Contemporary methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(4), 31-50.
8. Cross, L. H., Impara, J. C., Frary, R. B., and Jaeger, R. M. (1984). A comparison of three methods for establishing minimum standards on the National Teacher Examinations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(2), 113-129.
9. Embretson, S. E., and Wetzel, D. (1987). Component latent trait models for paragraph comprehension tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(2), 175-193.
10. Fisher, G. H. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.
11. Gibbons, R. D., and Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Full-information item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57(3), 423-436.
12. Holzinger, K. I., and Swineford, F. (1937). The bifactor method. Psychometrika, 2(1), 41-54.
13. Huynh, H. (1998). On score locations for binary and partial credit items and their applications to item mapping and criterion-referenced interpretation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(1), 35-56.
14. Impara, J. C., and Plake, B. S. (1997). Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(4), 355-368.
15. Impara, J. C., and Plake, B. S. (1998). Teachers' ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions of the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(1), 69-81.
16. rd ed., pp. 485-514). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
17. Jaeger, R. M. (1990). Establishing standards for teacher certification tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(4), 15-20.
18. Lewis, D. M., and Green, D. R. (1997, June). The validity of performance level descriptors. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
19. Lewis D. M., Green, D. R, Mitzel, H. C., Baum, K., and Patz, R. J. (April, 1998). The bookmark standard setting procedure: Methodology and recent implementations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diago, CA.
20. Lewis D. M., Mitzel, H. C., and Green, D. R. (1996, June). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on LargeScale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
21. Lord, F. M., and Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22. Mehrens, W. A. (1995). Methodological issues in standard setting for educational exams. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments, Volume II (pp. 221-263). Washington DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
23. Mislevy, R. J., and Bock, R. D. (1989). BILOG3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models [Computer program and manual]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
24. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., and Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In C. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Muraki, E. (1996). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden and R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153-164). New York: Springer-Verlag.
26. Norcini, J. J., Shea, J. A., and Kanya, D. T. (1988). The effect of various factors on standard setting. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25(1), 57-65.
27. Pellegrino, J. W., Jones, L. R., and Mitchell, K. J. (Eds.) (1999). Grading the nation's report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for Educational Research. (Expanded edition, 1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)
29. Sheehan, K. M. (1997). A tree-based approach to proficiency scaling and diagnostic assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(1), 333-354.
30. Sheehan, K. M., and Mislevy, R. J. (1990). Integrating cognitive and psychometric models in a measure of document literacy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 255-272.
31. Shepard, L. A. (1995). Implications for standard setting of the National Academy of Education evaluation of the national assessment of educational progress achievement levels. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments, Volume II (pp. 143-160). Washington DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
32. Shepard, L., Glaser, R., Linn, R. L., and Bornstedt, G. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
33. Skaggs, G., and Tessema, A. (2001, April). Item disordinality with the bookmark standard setting procedure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
34. Virginia Department of Education. (2003). English standards of learning curriculum framework, grade eleven. Richmond, VA: Author.
35. Wainer, H., and Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computer adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(3), 185-201.
36. Whitely, S. E. (1980). Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika, 45(4), 479-494.
37. Wilson, D. T., Wood, R., and Gibbons, R. (1998). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis [Computer program and manual]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
38. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effect of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125-145.
39. Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187-213.
40. Ziecky, M. J. (2001). So much as changed: How the setting of cutscores has evolved since the 1980s. In C. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 19-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.