Item selection in computerized classification testing

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 778-793

  Thompson, Nathan A ^a  

^a Assessment Systems Corporation   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive testing; Computerized classification testing; Item response theory; Item selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350129444     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164408324460     Document Type: Article

References (27)

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. (2004). Effects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 41, 149-174.
3. Eggen, T.J.H.M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the sequential probability ratio test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.
4. 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, 713-734.
5. Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Ferguson, R.L. (1969). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a computer-assisted branched test for a program of individually prescribed instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
7. Frick, T.W. (1992). Computerized adaptive mastery tests as expert systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(2), 187-213.
8. Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
9. Jiao, H., Wang, S., & Lau, C.A. (2004, April). An investigation of two combination procedures of SPRT for three-category classification decisions in computerized classification test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
10. Kingsbury, G.G. & Weiss, D.J. (1983). A comparison of IRT-based adaptive mastery testing and a sequential mastery testing procedure. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 257-283). New York: Academic Press.
11. Lau, C.A. (1998). Robustness of a unidimensional computerized testing mastery procedure with multidimensional testing data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
12. Lin, C.-J., & Spray, J.A. (2000). Effects of item-selection criteria on classification testing with the sequential probability ratio test (Research Report 2000-8). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
13. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Luecht, R.M., & Nungester, R.J. (1998). Some practical examples of computer-adaptive sequential testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 229-249.
15. Reckase, M.D. (1983). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237-254). New York: Academic Press.
16. 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.
17. Smith, R.L., & Lewis, C. (2002, April). A comparison of computer mastery models when pool characteristics vary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
18. Spray, J.A., Abdel-fattah, A.A., Huang, C., & Lau, C.A. (1997). Unidimensional approximations for a computerized test when the item pool and latent space are multidimensional (Research Report 97-5). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
19. Spray, J.A., & Reckase, M.D. (1994, April). The selection of test items for decision making with a computer adaptive test. Paper presented at the national meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
20. 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, 405-414.
21. Thompson, N.A. (2007). A practitioner's guide for variable-length computerized classification testing. practical assessment research & evaluation. Available from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=3.
22. Thompson, N.A., Ro, S., Matthews-Lopez, J.L., & Maurelli, V. (2008, March). Computerized classification testing with composite hypotheses. Presentation at the annual meeting of the National Council for Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
23. Vos, H.J. (2000). A Bayesian procedure in the context of sequential mastery testing. Psicologica, 21, 191-211.
24. Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: John Wiley.
25. Weiss, D.J., & Kingsbury, G.G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testing to educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 361-375.
26. Weissman, A. (2004, April). Mutual information item selection in multiple-category classification CAT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
27. Weissman, A. (2007). Mutual information item selection in adaptive classification testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 41-58.