Item position and Item difficulty change in an IRT-based common item equating design

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 38-60

  Meyers, Jason L ^a,b   Miller, G Edward ^c   Way, Walter D ^b  

^a Austin Operations CenterTech Ridge   (United States)

^b Pearson ^*

^c Texas Education Agency   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149134838     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340802558342     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Brennan, R. (1992). The context of context effects. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 225-264.
2. Davis, J., & Ferdous, A. (2005). Using item difficulty and item position to measure test fatigue. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
3. Eignor, D. R., & Stocking, M. (1986). An investigation of possible causes for the inadequacy of JRT pre-equating (ETS RR-86-14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4. Haertel, E. (2004). The behavior of linking items in test equating. CSE Report 630. CRESST.
5. Harris, D. (1991). Effects of passage and item scrambling on equating relationships. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(3), 247-256.
6. Kingston, N. M., & Dorans, N. J. (1984). Item location effects and their implications for IRT equating and adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 147-154.
7. Klein, S., & Bolus. R. (1983). The effect of item sequence on bar examination scores. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Quebec.
8. Kolen, M., & Harris, D. (1990). Comparison of item pre-equating and random groups equating using IRT and equipercentile methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(1), 27-29.
9. Leary, L., & Dorans, N. (1982). The effects of item rearrangement on test performance: A review of the literature. (ETS Research Report RR-82-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Leary, L., & Dorans, N. (1985). Implications for altering the context in which test items appear: A historical perspective on an immediate concern. Review of Educational Research, 55, 387-413.
11. Miller, G. E., Rotou, O., & Twing, J. S. (2004). Evaluation of the 0.3 logits criterion in common item equating. Journal of Applied Measurement, 5(2), 172-177.
12. PISA. (2000). PISA 2000 Technical Report-Magnitude of Booklet Effects. Palis, France: OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
13. Pommerich, M., & Harris, D. J. (2003). Context effects in pretesting: Impact on item statistics and examinee scores. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
14. Rubin, L., & Mott, D. (1984). The effect of the position of an item within a test on the item difficulty value. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
15. Way, W. D., Carey, P., & Golub-Smith, M. (1992). An exploratory study of characteristics related to IRT item parameter invariance with the Test of English as a Foreign Language. (TOEFL Tech. Rep. No. 6.) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
16. Whitely, E., & Dawis, R. (1976). The influence of test context on item difficulty. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 329-337.
17. Wise, L., Chia, W., & Park, R. (1989). Item position effects for test of work knowledge and arithmetic reasoning. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Francisco.
18. Wright, B. D., & Douglas, G. A. (1975). Best test design and self-tailored testing. Research Memorandum No. 19., Statistical Laboratories, Department of Education, University of Chicago.
19. Yen, W. M. (1980). The extent, causes and importance of context effects on item parameters for two latent trait models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 297-311.
20. Zwick, R. (1991). Effects of item order and context on estimation of NAEP reading proficiency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 10-16.