Effects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 149-174

  Chen, Shu Ying ^a   Ankenmann, Robert D ^b  

^a NATIONAL CHUNG CHENG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4544308544     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2004.tb01112.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Chang, 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. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 241-255.
3. Davey, T., & Parshall, C. G. (1995, April). New algorithms for item selection and exposure control with computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
4. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1989). Procedure for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 359-375.
6. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. McBride, J. R., & Martin, J. T. (1983). Reliability and validity of adaptive ability tests in a military setting. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing (pp. 223-236). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8. Segall, D. O. (1987). ACAP item pools: Analysis and recommendations. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
9. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1998). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavior Statistics, 23, 57-75.
10. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (2000). Methods of controlling the exposure of items in CAT. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 163-182). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
12. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973-977). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
13. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
14. Veerkamp, W. J., & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavior Statistics, 22, 203-226.
15. Wainer, H., and Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 189-205.
16. Wang, T., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). Properties of ability estimation methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(2), 109-135.
17. Ward, W. C. (1988). The College Board computerized placement tests: An application of computerized adaptive testing. Machine-Mediated Learning, 2, 217-282.
18. Way, W. D. (1998). Protecting the integrity of computerized testing item pools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 17-27.