Polytomous models in computerized adaptive testing

Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 229-255

  Boyd, Aimee ^c   Dodd, Barbara ^a   Choi, Seung ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951701446     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (94)

1. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
2. Baker, F., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed). New York: Marcel Dekker.
3. Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C.-H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: Item banking, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16, 95-108.
4. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
5. Bode, R. K., Lai, J.-S., & Heineman, A. (2006). Expansion of a physical function item bank and development of an abbreviated form for clinical research. Journal of Applied Measurement, 7, 1-15.
6. Boyd, A. M. (2004). Strategies for controlling testlet exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing systems [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2003]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 11, 5835B (No. AAT 3110732).
7. Brown, J. M., & Weiss, D. J. (1977). An adaptive testing strategy for achievement test batteries (Research Report 77-6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, Psychometrics Methods Program.
8. Burt, W., Kim, S., Davis, L., & Dodd, B. G. (2003). Three exposure control techniques in CAT using the generalized partial credit model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
9. Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J.-S., & Choi, S. W. (2007a). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16, 133-141.
10. Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007b). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45 (Suppl. 1), S3-S11.
11. Chang, C.-H. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and techniques. Quality of Life Research, 16, 157-166.
12. Chang, H.-H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
13. Chang, H.-H., & Ying, Z. (1999). A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 23, 211-222.
14. Chang, S.-W. (1999). A comparative study of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1998]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 9, 3418A (No. AAT 9904286).
15. Chen, S. K., Hou, L., & Dodd, B. G. (1998). A comparison of the maximum likelihood estimation and expected a posteriori estimation in CAT using the partial credit model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 569-595.
16. Chen, S. K., Hou, L., Fitzpatrick, S. J., & Dodd, B. G. (1997). The effect of population distribution and method of theta estimation on computerized adaptive testing (CAT) using the rating scale model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 422-439.
17. Chen, S.-Y., Ankenmann, R. D., & Chang, H.-H. (2000). A comparison of item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 241-255.
18. Choi, S. W., & Swartz, R. J. (2009). Comparison of CAT Item Selection Criteria for Polytomous Items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 419-440.
19. Davis, L. L. (2003). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with polytomously scored items [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2002]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 1, 458B (No. AAT 3077522).
20. Davis, L. L. (2004). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 165-185.
21. Davis, L. L., & Dodd, B. G. (2003). Item exposure constraints for testlets in the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 335-356.
22. Davis, L. L., & Dodd, B. G. (2008). Strategies for controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing with the partial credit model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9, 1-117.
23. Davis, L. L., Pastor, D. A., Dodd, B. G., Chiang, C., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2003). An examination of exposure control and content balancing restrictions on item selection in CATs using the partial credit model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 24-42.
24. De Ayala, R. J. (1989). A comparison of the nominal response model and the threeparameter logistic model in computerized adaptive testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 789-805.
25. De Ayala, R. J. (1992). The nominal response model in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 327-343.
26. De Ayala, R. J., Dodd, B. G., & Koch, W. R. (1992). A comparison of the partial credit and graded response models in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 17-34.
27. Dodd, B. G. (1990). The effect of item selection procedure and step size on computerized adaptive attitude measurement using the rating scale model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 355-366.
28. Dodd, B. G., & De Ayala, R. J. (1994). Item information as a function of threshold values in the rating scale model. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 301-317). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29. Dodd, B. G., De Ayala, R. J., & Koch, W. R. (1995). Computerized adaptive testing with polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 5-22.
30. Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 129-143.
31. Dodd, B. G., Koch, W. R., & De Ayala, R. J. (1993). Computerized adaptive testing using the partial credit model: Effects of item pool characteristics and different stopping rules. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 61-77.
32. Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., Klapp, B. F., & Rose, M. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14, 2277-2291.
33. Fries, J. F. (2006). The promise of the future, updated: Better outcome tools, greater relevance, more efficient study, lower research costs. Future Rheumatology, 1, 415-421.
34. Gardner, W., Kelleher, K. J., & Pajer, K. A. (2002). Multidimensional adaptive testing for mental health problems in primary care. Medical Care, 40, 812-823.
35. Gardner, W., Shear, K., Kelleher, K. J., Pajer, K. A., Mammen, O., Buysse, D., et al. (2004). Computerized adaptive measurement of depression: A simulation study. BioMed Central. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://ww.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/4/13
36. Georgiadou, E. G., Triantafillou, E., & Economides, A. A. (2007). A review of item exposure control strategies for computerized adaptive testing developed from 1983 to 2005. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5, 4-38.
37. Gershon, R. C. (2005). Computer adaptive testing. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6, 109-127.
38. Gorin, J. S., Dodd, B. G., Fitzpatrick, S. J., & Shieh, Y. Y. (2005). Computerized adaptive testing with the partial credit model: Estimation procedures, population distributions, and item pool characteristics. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 433-456.
39. Haley, S. M., Ni, P., Hambleton, R. K., Slavin, M. D., & Jette, A. M. (2006). Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 1174-1182.
40. Hart, D. L., Cook, K. F., Mioduski, J. E., Teal, C. R., & Crane, P. K. (2006). Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 290-298.
41. Hart, D. L., Mioduski, J. E., & Stratford, P. W. (2005). Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 629-638.
42. Hol, A. M., Vorst, H. C. M., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2005). A randomized experiment to compare conventional, computerized, and computerized adaptive administration of ordinal polytomous attitude items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 159-183.
43. Hol, A. M., Vorst, H. C. M., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2007). Computerized adaptive testing for polytomous motivation items: Administration mode effects and a comparison with short forms. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 412-429.
44. Jette, A. M., Haley, S. M., Tao, W., Ni, P., Moed, R., Meyers, D., et al. (2007). Prospective evaluation of the AM-PAC-CAT in outpatient rehabilitation settings. Physical Therapy, 87, 385-398.
45. Johnson, M. A. (2007). An investigation of stratification exposure control procedures in CATs using the generalized partial credit model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
46. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 359-375.
47. Koch, W. R., & Dodd, B. G. (1989). An investigation of procedures for computerized adaptive testing using partial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 335-357.
48. Koch, W. R., Dodd, B. G., & Fitzpatrick, S. J. (1990). Computerized adaptive measurements of attitudes. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 23, 20-30.
49. Lai, J.-S., Cella, D., Chang, C.-H., Bode, R. K., & Heinemann, A. W. (2003). Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Quality of Life Research, 12, 485-501.
50. Lai, J.-S., Dineen, K., & Reeve, B. (2005). An item response theory based pain item bank can enhance measurement precision. Journal of Pain and Symptomology Management, 30, 278-288.
51. Lau, C. A., & Wang, T. (1998, April). Comparing and combining dichotomous and polytomous items with SPRT procedure in computerized classification testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
52. Lau, C. A., & Wang, T. (1999, April). Computerized classification testing under practical constraints with a polytomous model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
53. Leung, C. K., Chang, H.-H., & Hau, K. T. (1999). Item selection in computerized adaptive testing: Improving the a-stratified design with the Sympson-Hetter algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 376-392.
54. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Luecht, R. M., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Some practical examples of computeradaptive sequential testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 229-249.
56. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
57. McClarty, K. L. (2007). A feasibility study of a computerized adaptive test of the International Personality Item Pool NEO [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2006]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 12B (No. AAT 3244332).
58. McClarty, K. L., Sperling, R. A., & Dodd, B. D. (2006, April). A variant of the progressive-restricted item exposure control procedure in computerized adaptive testing systems based on the 3PL and partial credit models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
59. Mislevy, R. J., & Stocking, M. L. (1989). A consumer's guide to LOGIST and BILOG. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 57-75.
60. Morrison, C. A., Subhiyah, R. G., & Nungester, R. J. (1995). Item exposure rates for unconstrained and content-balanced computerized adaptive tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
61. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 159-176.
62. Owen, R. J. (1969). A Bayesian approach to tailored testing (Research Report 69-92). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
63. Owen, R. J. (1975). A Bayesian sequential procedure for quantal response in the context of adaptive mental testing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 351-156.
64. Passos, V. L., Berger, M. P. F., & Tan, F. (2007). Test design optimization in CAT early stage with the nominal response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 213-232.
65. Pastor, D. A., Dodd, B. G., & Chang, H. H. (2002). A comparison of item selection techniques and exposure control mechanisms in CATs using the generalized partial credit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 147-163.
66. Penfield, R. D. (2006). Applying Bayesian item selection approaches to adaptive tests using polytomous items. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 1-20.
67. Petersen, M. A., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N., Fayers, P., Sprangers, M., & Bjorner, J. B. (2006). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing of the EORTC QLQ-C30: Basic developments and evaluations, Quality of Life Research, 15, 315-329.
68. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: Plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45 (Suppl. 1), S22-S31.
69. Reise, S. P., & Henson, J. M. (2000). Computerization and adaptive administration of the NEO PI-R. Assessment, 7, 347-364.
70. Revuelta, J., & Ponsoda, V. (1998). A comparison of item exposure control methods in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 311-327.
71. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika, Monograph 17.
72. Samejima, F. (1998, April). Expansion of Warm's weighted likelihood estimator of ability for the three-parameter logistic model to general discrete responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.
73. Seong, T. (1990). Sensitivity of marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item and ability parameters to the characteristics of the prior ability distributions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 299-311.
74. Singh, J. (1993, September). Some initial experiments with adaptive survey designs for structured questionnaires. Paper presented at the New Methods and Applications in Consumer Research Conference, Cambridge, MA.
75. Singh, J., Howell, R. D., & Rhoads, G. K. (1990). Adaptive designs for Likert-type data: An approach for implementing marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 304-321.
76. Stocking, M. L. (1993). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (Technical Report RR 3-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
77. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1998). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 57-75.
78. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
79. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985, October). Controlling item exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Military Testing Association, San Diego.
80. Thissen, D., Reeve, B. B., Bjorner, J. B., & Chang, C.-H. (2007). Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Quality of Life Research, 16, 109-119.
81. van der Linden, W. J. (1998). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing, Psychometrika, 63, 201-216.
82. van der Linden, W. J., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Item selection and ability estimation in adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glass (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 271-288). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
83. van Krimpen-Stoop, E. M. L. A., & Meijer, R. R. (2002). Detection of person misfit in computerized adaptive tests with polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 164-180.
84. van Rijn, P. W., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Hemker, B. T., & Sanders, P. F. (2002). Evaluation of selection procedures for computerized adaptive testing with polytomous items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 393-411.
85. Veerkamp, W. J. J., & Berger, M. P. F. (1997). Some new item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 203-226.
86. Veldkamp, B. P. (2003). Item selection in polytomous CAT. In H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigemasu, Y. Kano, & J. J. Meulman (Eds.), New developments in psychometrics (pp. 207-214). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
87. Wang, S., & Wang, T. (2001). Precision of Warm's weighted likelihood estimates for a polytomous model in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 317-331.
88. Wang, S., & Wang, T. (2002). Relative precision of ability estimation in polytomous CAT: A comparison under the generalized partial credit model and graded response model. Advances in Psychology Research, 16, 62-77.
89. Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., & Kosinski, M. (2000). Practical implications of item res-ponse theory and computerized adaptive testing. Medical Care, 38, II73-II82.
90. Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J., & Bjorner, J. B. (2005). Item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: Implications for outcomes measurement in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 71-78.
91. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Bayliss, M. S., Batenhorst, A., Dahlof, C. G. H., et al. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12, 935-952.
92. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-450.
93. Way, W. D. (1998). Protecting the integrity of computerized testing item pools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 17-27.
94. Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.