Models for delivery of CBTs

Computer-Based Testing: Building the Foundation for Future Assessments

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 41-66

  Folk, Valerie Greaud ^a   Smith, Robert L ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85071804912     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410612250-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
3. Chang, H., & Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 213-229.
4. Chang, H., & Ying, Z. (1999). a-stratified multistage computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 211-222.
5. Eggen, T. J. H. M. (1999). Item selection in adaptive testing with the Sequential Probability Ratio Test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 249-261.
6. Eignor, D. R., Folk, V. G., Li, M., & Stocking, M. L. (1994, April). Pinpointing Praxis I CAT characteristics through simulation procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
7. Eignor, D. R., Stocking, M. L., Way, W. D., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (ETS Research Report RR-93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Fennessy, L. M., & McKinley, R. L. (1991). Analysis of the effect of the randomized item selection technique on the accuracy of the θ and number-right estimation for the ORE computer adaptive test (ETS Statistical Report SR-91-90). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Ferguson, G. A. (1942). Item selection by the constant process. Psychometrika, 7, 19-29.
10. Ferguson, R. L. (1969a). Computer-assisted criterion-referenced measurement. (Working paper No. 41). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Learning and Research Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 037 089).
11. Ferguson, R. L. (1969b). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a computerassisted branched test for a program of individually prescribed instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. (University Microfilms No. 70-4530).
12. Green, B. F. (1983). The promise of tailored tests. In H. Wainer & S. Messick (Eds.), Principles of modern psychological measurement: A Festschrift for Frederic M. Lord (pp. 69-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Green, B. F. (1988). Critical problems in computer-based psychological measurement. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 223-231.
14. Green, B. F., Bock, R. D., Humphreys, L. G., Linn, R. L., & Reckase, M. D. (1984). Technical guidelines for assessing computerized adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 347-360.
15. Hambleton, R. K. (1986, February). Effects of item order and anxiety on test performance and stress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
16. Hambleton, R. K., Zaal, J. N., & Pieters, J. P. M. (1991). Computerized adaptive testing: Theory, applications, and standards. In R. K. Hambleton & J. N. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing: Theory and applications (pp. 341-366). Boston: Kluwer.
17. Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., & Parsons, C. K. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
18. Jones, D. H. (1997, April). Mathematical programming approaches to computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
19. 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 intesting: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 257-283). New York: Academic Press.
20. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1989). Procedures for selecting items for computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 359-375.
21. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content-sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 3, 241-261.
22. Lawley, D. N. (1943). On problems connected with item selection and test construction. Recordings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 61, 273-287.
23. Lawrence, I. M. (1995). Estimating reliability for tests composed of item sets (ETS Research Report RR-95-18). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24. Lewis, C., & Sheehan, K. (1990). Using Bayesian decision theory to design a computer mastery test. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 367-386.
25. Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (1998, April). An evaluation of multidimensional IRT equating methods by assessing the accuracy of transforming parameters onto a target metric. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
26. Lord, F. M. (1952). A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monograph, 7.
27. Lord, F. M. (1977). A broad-range tailored test of verbal ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 95-100.
28. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Lord, F. M. (1983). Unbiased estimates of ability parameters, of their variance, and their parallel form reliability. Psychometrika, 48, 233-245.
30. Luecht, R. M. (2000, April). Implementing the computer-adaptive sequential testing (CAST) framework to mass produce high quality computer-adaptive and mastery tests. Symposium paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
31. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174.
32. Mills, C. N., & Stocking, M. L. (1996). Practical issues in large-scale computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 9, 287-304.
33. 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, 351-356.
34. Pashley, P. (1997, April). An overview of the LSAC CAT Research Agenda. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
35. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Denmark's Paedogogiske Institute.
36. Reckase, M. D. (1983a). A procedure for decision making using tailored testing. In D. J. Weiss (Ed.), New horizons in testing: Latent trait test theory and computerized adaptive testing (pp. 237-255). New York: Academic Press.
37. Reckase, M. D. (1983b, April). The definition of difficulty and discrimination for multidimensional item response theory models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
38. Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401-422.
39. Reckase, M. D., & McKinley, R. L. (1991). The discriminating power of items that measure more than one dimension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 361-373.
40. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monograph, 17.
41. Sands, W. A., Waters, B. K., & McBride, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42. Segall, D. O. (1988). A procedure for scoring incomplete adaptive tests in high stakes testing. Unpublished manuscript, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA.
43. Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61, 331-354.
44. Segall, D. O., Moreno, K. E., Bloxom, B. M., & Hetter, R. D. (1997). Psychometric procedures for administering CAT-ASVAB. In W. A. Sands, B. K. Waters, & J. R. McBride (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation (pp. 131-140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45. Sheehan, K., & Lewis, C. (1992). Computerized mastery testing with nonequivalent testlets. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 65-76.
46. Smith, R., & Lewis, C. (1995, April). A Bayesian computerized mastery model with multiple cut scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
47. Smith, R., & Lewis, C. (1996, April). A search procedure to determine sets of decision points when using testlet-based Bayesian sequential testing procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
48. Smith, R., & Lewis, C. (1997, April). Incorporating decision consistency into Bayesian sequential testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
49. Smith, R., & Lewis, C. (1998, April). Expected losses for individuals in computer mastery testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
50. Spray, J. (1993). Multiple-category classification using a sequential probability ratio test (ACT Research Report RR-93-7). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
51. 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 annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
52. Stocking, M. L. (1987). Two simulated feasibility studies in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36, 263-277.
53. Stocking, M. L. (1993). Controlling item exposure rates in a realistic adaptive testing paradigm (ETS Research Report RR-93-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
54. Stocking, M. L. (1994a). Three practical issues for modern adaptive testing item pools (ETS Research Report RR-94-5). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
55. Stocking, M. L. (1994b). An alternative method for scoring adaptive tests (ETS Research Report RR-94-48). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
56. Stocking, M. L. (1997). Revising item responses in computerized adaptive tests: A comparison of three models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 129-142.
57. Stocking, M. L., & Lewis, C. (1995a). A new method of controlling item exposure in computerized adaptive testing (ETS Research Report RR-95-25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
58. Stocking, M. L, & Lewis, C. (1995b). Controlling item exposure conditional on ability in computerized adaptive testing (ETS Research Report RR-95-24). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
59. Stocking, M. L., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277-292.
60. Stocking, M. L., Swanson, L., & Pearlman, M. (1993). Application of an automated item selection method to real data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 167-176.
61. Stone, G. E., & Lunz, M. E. (1994). The effect of review on the psychometric characteristics of computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 211-222.
62. Swanson, L., & Stocking, M. L. (1993). A model and heuristic for solving very large item selection problems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 151-166.
63. Sympson, J. B., & Hetter, R. D. (1985). Controlling item-exposure rates in computerized adaptive testing. Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Military Testing Association. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research Development Center.
64. Tatsuoka, K. K., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1997). Computerized cognitive diagnostic adaptive testing: Effect on remedial instruction as validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 3-20.
65. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Mooney, J. A. (1989). Trace lines for testlets: A use of multiplecategorical-response models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 247-260.
66. van der Linden, W. J. (1998a). Optimal assembly of psychological and educational tests. 4pplied Psychological Measurement, 22, 195-211.
67. van der Linden, W. J. (1998b). Bayesian item selection criteria for adaptive testing. Unpublished manuscript.
68. van der Linden, W. J., & Reese, L. M. (1998). An optimal model for constrained adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 259-270.
69. Vos, H. J. (1997). Applications of Bayesian decision theory to sequential mastery testing. (Research Report No. 97-06). Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
70. Wainer, H. (1992). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format (ETS Research Report RR-92-13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
71. Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 185-201.
72. Wainer, H., & Lewis, C. (1990). Toward a psychometrics for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 1-14.
73. Wald, A. (1947). Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.
74. Wang, M. M., & Wingersky, M. (1992, April). Incorporating post-administration item response revisions into a CAT. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
75. Weiss, D. J. (1982). Improving measurement quality and efficiency with adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 473-492.
76. Wingersky, M. S. (1983). LOGIST: A program for computing maximum likelihood procedures for logistic test models. In R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Applications of item response theory (pp. 45-56). Vancouver, BC: Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
77. Wise, S. L. (1996, April). A critical analysis of the arguments for and against item review in computerized adaptive testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.