Facing the Opportunities of the Future

Computer-Based Testing and the Internet: Issues and Advances

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 219-251

  Breithaupt, Krista J ^a   Mills, Craig N ^a   Melican, Gerald J ^a  

^a Harborside Financial Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment tasks; Cost effective ways; Measurement profession; Scoring and analysis methods; Test designs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889396554     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470712993.ch12     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2002). Structure, length, and examinationcontent specificationsfor theUniformCPAExamination. JerseyCity,NJ:AICPA.
3. Bennett, R. E. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(3):5-12.
4. Breithaupt, K., Ariel, A., & Veldkamp, B. (2004, April). Balancing item exposure and optimality in automated assembly for multi-stage testing (AICPA Technical Report, Series II, 2). Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
5. Breithaupt, K., & Hare, D. (2004, February). Automated simultaneous assembly of multi-stage testlets for the Uniform CPA Examination. Invited paper presented at the ATP Conference, Palm Springs, CA.
6. Brittingham, P., et al. (2000). The mathematics test creation assistant: A tool for automated item generation. Retrieved http://www.ncme.org/about/awards/bennett.html, 11th August 2004.
7. Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1999). Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Embretson, S. E. (1999). Generating items during testing: Psychometric issues and models. Psychometrika, 64:407-433.
9. Glass, G. V. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15:237-262.
10. Hambleton, R. K., & Pitoniak, M. J. (2002). Setting passing scores on the CBT version of the Uniform CPA Examination: Comparison of several promising methods (AICPA Technical Report, Series II, 7). Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
11. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Item response theory: Applications to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
12. International Test Commission. (2000). International guidelines for test use. Retrieved http://www.intestcom.org, 11th August 2004.
13. Irvine, S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (Eds.). (2002). Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Keller, L. (2002). Using collateral information for IRT parameter estimation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer-Based Testing and the Internet, Winchester, UK.
15. Luecht, R. M. (2003). Calibration and scoring the computerized Uniform CPA Examination (AICPA Technical Report, Series II, 14). Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
16. Luecht, R., Brumfield, T., & Breithaupt, K. (2002). A testlet assembly design for the Uniform CPA Examination (AICPA Technical Report, Series II, 12). Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
17. Luecht, R. M., & Nungester, R. J. (1998). Some practical applications of computerized adaptive sequential testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35:229-249.
18. Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.
19. Martinez, M. E., & Bennett, R. E. (1992). A review of automatically scorable constructedresponse item types for large-scale assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 5:151-169.
20. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.; pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
21. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G., (1999). On the roles of task model variables in assessment design (CRESST Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, CRESST. Retrieved www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TECH500.pdf, 8 November 2004.
22. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Russell, R. G., Breyer, F. J., & Johnson, L. (2001, March). Making sense of data from complex assessments (CRESST Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, CRESST.
23. National Council on Educational Measurement. (1991). Standard-setting [Special Issue]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2).
24. Performance Testing Council. (2004). Best practices. Retrieved http://www.performancetest.org/bestpractices.html, 11 August 2004.
25. Popham, W. J. (1973). Evaluating instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D., & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks. Language Learning, 49:219-274.
28. Tekian, A., McGuire, C., & McGaghie, C. (Eds.). (1999). Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence. Chicago, IL: Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago.
29. van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing; Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
30. van der Linden, W. J., & Mead, A. D. (2004, April). Optimal calibration design for multistage adaptive testing. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
31. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12:15-20.
32. Wainer, H., Bradlow, E. T., & Du, Z. (2000). Testlet response theory: An analog for the 3pl model useful in testlet-based adaptive testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
33. Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24:185-201.