Rotating item banks versus restriction of maximum exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing

Spanish Journal of Psychology

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 618-625

  Barrada, Juan Ramón ^a   Olea, Julio ^b   Abad, Francisco José ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Bank rotation; Item bank security; Overlap rate; Sympson Hetter method

Indexed keywords

EID: 56049107077     PISSN: 11387416     EISSN: 19882904     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s1138741600004625     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ariel, A., Veldkamp, B. P., & van der Linden, W. J. (2004). Constructing rotating item pools for constrained adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 345-359.
2. Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., & Ponsoda, V. (2007). Methods for restricting maximum exposure rate in computerized adaptive testing. Methodology, 3, 14-23.
3. Barrada, J. R., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & Abad, F. J. (In press). Incorporating randomness to the Fisher information for improving item exposure control in CATs. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology.
4. Barrada, J. R., Veldkamp, B. P., & Olea, J. (In press). Multiple maximum exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement.
5. Chang, H. H. (2004). Understanding computerized adaptive testing - From Robbins-Monro to Lord and beyond. In David Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Chang, H. H., & van der Linden, W. J. (2003). Optimal stratification of item pools in α-stratified computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 262-274.
7. Chang, H. H., & Ying, Z. (1999). α-Stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222.
8. Chen, S. Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Spray, J. A. (2003). The relationship between item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 129-145.
9. Chen, S. Y., & Lei, P. W. (2005). Controlling item exposure and test overlap in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 204-217.
10. Chen, S. Y., Lei, P. W., & Liao. W. H. (In press). Controlling item exposure and test overlap on the fly in computerized adaptive testing. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology.
11. Davey, T., & Nering, N. (2002). Controlling item exposure and maintaining item security. In C. N. Mills, M. T. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, & W. C. Ward, (Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 165-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Dodd, B. G. (1990). The effect of item selection procedure and stepsize on computerized adaptive attitude measurement using the rating scale model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 355-366.
13. Lu, Y., & Hambleton, R. K. (2004). Statistics for detecting disclosed items in CAT environment. Metodologia de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5, 225-242.
14. Mills, G. N., & Steffen, M. (2000). The GRE computer adaptive test: Operation issues. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 75-100). Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
15. Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 311-327.
16. Segall, D. O. (2004). A sharing item response theory model for computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 29, 439-460.
17. Stocking, M. L. (1994). Three practical issues for modern adaptive testing item pools. ETS Research Report No 94-05. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1998). Optimal design of items banks for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 271-279.
19. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association (pp. 973-977). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
20. van der Linden. W. J. (2003). Some alternatives to Sympson-Hetter item-exposure control in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 28, 249-265.
21. van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Linear models for optimal test design. New York: Springer.
22. van der Linden, W. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2004). Constraining item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with shadow tests. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 29, 273-291.
23. Veerkamp, W. & Glas, C.A.W. (2000). Detection of known items in adaptive testing with a statistical quality control method. Journal of Behavioral and Educational Statistics, 25, 373-389.
24. Wainer, H. (2000). Rescuing computerized testing by breaking Zipf's law. Journal of Educational & Behavioral Statistics, 25, 203-224.
25. Way, W. D. (1998). Protecting the integrity of computerized testing item pools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 17-27.
26. Wise, S. L., & Kingsbury, G. G. (2000). Practical issues in developing and maintaining a computerized adaptive testing program. Psicologica, 21, 135-155.