A Comparison of Four Item-Selection Methods for Severely Constrained CATs

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 677-696

  He, Wei ^a   Diao, Qi ^b   Hauser, Carl ^a  

^a Northwest Evaluation Association   (United States)

^b CTB MCGRAW HILL   (United States)

Author keywords

constraint management; content balancing; item selection; severely constrained computerized adaptive test

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907167041     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164413517503     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Chang H.,Ying Z.A-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1999;23:211-222
2. Chen S.,Ankenmann R. D.Effects of practical constraints on item selection rules at the early stages of computerized adaptive testing.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2004;41:149-174
3. Cheng Y.,Chang H.The maximum priority index method for severely constrained item selection in computerized adaptive testing.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 2009;63:369-383
4. Cheng Y.,Chang H.,Yi Q.Two-phase item selection procedure for flexible content balancing in CAT.Applied Psychological Measurement. 2007;31:467-482
5. HeW. (2010). Optimal item pool design for a highly constrained computerized adaptive test (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansin.
6. He W.,Reckase M.Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education; 2011Denver, CO; 2011.
7. Kingsbury G. G.,Zara A. R.Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests.Applied Measurement in Education. 1989;2:359-375
8. Leung C. K.,Chang H.,Hau K.Computerized adaptive testing: A comparison of three content balancing methods.Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment. 2003;2 (5):
9. McBride J. R.,Martin J. T.New horizons in testing. Weiss D. J., ed. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1983:223-226.
10. Robin F.,van der Linden W. J.,Eignor D. R.,Steffen M.,Stocking M. L.A comparison of two procedures for constrained adaptive test construction. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2005:
11. Segall D. O.,Davey T. C.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society; 1995Minneapolis, MN; 1995.
12. Shin C.,Chien Y.,Way D.Paper presented at the NCME Annual Conference; 2012Vancouver, Canada; 2012.
13. ShinC.ChienY.WayW. D.SwansonL. (2009). Weighted penalty model for content balancing in CATs. Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonedmeasurement.com/downloads/research/Weighted%20Penalty%20Model.pdf
14. Smarter Balanced Assessment. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-assessments/
15. Stocking M. L.,Swanson L.A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1993;17:277-292
16. Swanson L.,Stocking M. L.A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1993;17:151-166
17. Sympson J. B.,Hetter R. D.Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center; 1985:973-977.
18. van der Linden W. J.A comparison of item-selection methods for adaptive tests with content constraints.Journal of Educational Measurement. 2005;42:283-302
19. van der Linden W. J.,Boekkooi-Timminga E.A maximin model for test design with practical constraints.Psychometrika. 1989;54:237-248
20. van der Linden W. J.,Reese L.A model for optimal constrained adaptive testing.Applied Psychological Measurement. 1998;22:259-270