Generative Testing: From Conception to Implementation

Item Generation for Test Development

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 199-217

  Bejar, Isaac I ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142558141     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410602145-18     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. Akin, O. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion Limited.
2. Akin, O. (1994, May). Calibration of problem difficulty: In architectural design problems designed for the automated licensing examination system in the United States of America. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton, NJ.
3. Almond, R. G., Steinberg, L. S., and Mislevy, R. J. (1999). A sample assessment using the four process framework. White paper prepared for the IMS Working Group on Question and Test Interoperability. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4. Bejar, I. I. (1990). A generative analysis of a three-dimensional spatial task. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 237-245.
5. Bejar, I. I. (1993a). A generative approach to psychological and educational measurement. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, and I. I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 323-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Bejar, I. I. (1993b). Optimisation approach to the design of tests consisting of complex tasks. Psychometric Society, Barcelona, Spain.
7. Bejar, I. I. (1996). Generative response modeling: Leveraging the computer as a test delivery medium (Research Report No. RR-96-13). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
8. Bejar, I. L, and Bennett, R. E. (1999). La puntuación de las respuestás como un parametro del diseño de exámenes: Implicaciones en la validez [Scoring as a test design parameter:Implications for validity]. In J. Olea, V. Ponsoda, and G. Prieto (Eds.), Tests informatizados:Fundamentos y aplicaciones (pp. 53-59). Madrid: Pirámide.
9. Bejar, I. I., and Braun, H. I. (1999). Architectural simulations: From research to implementation. Final report to the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (Research Memorandum No. RM-99-2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Bejar, I. I., Chaffin, R. B., and Embretson, S. (1991). Cognitive and psychometric analysis of analogical problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Bejar, I. I., Chiu, C. W. T., and Muraki, E. (2001). Characterisation of decision consistency under random sampling of forms An IRTapproach. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12. Bejar, I. I., and Oltman, P. K. (1999). Generalizability analyses of architectural design performance. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Bejar, I. I., and Yocom, P. (1991). A generative approach to the modeling of isomorphic hidden-figure items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(2), 129-137.
14. Bennett, R. E., and Bejar, I. I. (1999). Validity and automated scoring: It’s not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(4), 9-16.
15. Bormuth, J. R. (1970). On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Bradlow, E. T, Wainer, H., Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects models for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153-168.
17. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory (2nd ed.). Iowa City, IA: ACT.
18. Bridgeman, B., Bejar, I. I., and Friedman, D. (1999). Fairness issues in a computer-based architectural licensure examination. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 419-440.
19. Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
20. Chiu, C. W. -T. (1999). S coring performance assessments based on judgements: Utilising meta-analysis to estimate variance components in generalizability theory for unbalanced situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor.
21. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C, Nanda, H., and Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
23. CTB/McGraw-Hill (1994). National council of architectural registration boards: Comprehensive task analysis report. Monterey, CA: Author.
24. Educational Testing Service. (1993). Summary of activities for RDS subcommittee 4 (Division B) 92-93 (Summary Report). Princeton, NJ: Author.
25. Elliot, S. M., and Nelson, J. (1984). Blueprinting teacher licensing tests: Developing domain specifications from job analysis results. (ERIC Document No. ED 243 936).
26. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological bulletin, 93, 179-197.
27. Gao, X. (1996). Sampling variability and generalizability of work keys listening and writing scores (Research Report No. 96-1). Iowa City, IA: The American College Testing Program.
28. Hively, W. (1974). Introduction to domain-reference testing. Educational Technology, 14(6), 5-10.
29. Hombo, C. M., and Dresher, A. (2001, April). A simulation study of the impact of automatic item generation under NAEP-like data conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Educational Measurement, Seattle, WA.
30. Janssen, R., Tuerlinckx, R, Meulders, M., and De Boeck, P. (1999). A hierarchical IRT model for mastery classifications. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31. Katz, I. R. (1994a). Coping with the complexity of design: Avoiding conflicts and prioritising constraints. In A. Ram, N. Nersessian, and M. Recker (Eds)., Proceeding of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Katz, I. R. (1994b, April). From laboratory to test booklet: Using expert-novice comparisons to guide design of performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
33. Kenney, J. F. (1997). New testing methodologies for the Architect Registration Examination. CLEAR Exam Review, 8(2), 23-28.
34. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., and Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard?: Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294.
35. LaDuca, A., Templeton, B., Holzman, G. B., and Staples, W. I. (1986). Item-modeling procedure for constructing content-equivalent multiple-choice questions. Medical Education, 20, 53-56.
36. Lord, F. M. (1977). Some item analysis and test theory for a system of computer-assisted test construction for individualized instruction. Applied Psychological Measuremnt, 3(1), 447-455.
37. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Merwin, J. C. (1977). Considerations in exploring alternatives to standardized tests. In A. J. Nitko (Ed.), Exploring alternatives to current standardised tests: Proceedings of the 1976 Testing Conference (pp. 5-24). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
39. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education.
40. Mislevy, R. J., Sheehan, K. M., and Wingersky, M. (1993). How to equate tests with little or no data, Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(1), 55-78.
41. Mislevy, R. J., Wingersky, M. S., and Sheehan, K. M. (1994). Dealing with uncertainty about item parameters: Expected response functions (Research Report 94-28-ONR). Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
42. Osburn, H. G. (1968). Item sampling for achievement testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 95-104.
43. Raymond, M. R. (1996). Establishing weights for test plans for licensure and certification examinations. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(3), 237-256.
44. Revuelta, J., Bejar, I. I., and Stocking, M. (1998). Computerised adaptive testing with item isomorphs. Effects on the error of the test scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
45. Revuelta, J., and Ponsoda, V. (1999). Generación automatica de items. In J. Olea, V. Ponsoda, and G. Prieto (Eds.), Tests informatizados: Fundamentos y aplicaciones (pp. 227-248). Madrid: Pirámide.
46. Schmeiser, C. B., and Estes, C. A. (1986, April). Translating task analysis results into test specifications: Clarity or confusion? Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
47. Silberztein, M. (1993). Dictonnaires électroniques et analyse automatique de textes. Le système INTEX. Masson, Paris, France.
48. Simon, H. A., and Hayes, J. R. (1976). The understanding process: Problem isomorphs. Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 165-190.
49. Stecher, B. (1989, February). A national study of activities and knowledge/skills requirements of architects. Unpublished report, Educational Testing Service, Pasadena, CA.
50. Tryon, R. C. (1957). Reliability and behavior domain validity: Reformulation and historical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 229-249.
51. Wang, X., Bradlow, E. T., and Wainer, H. (2000). Users’s guide to Scoright (Version 1.0): A computer program for scoring tests built from tesdets. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
52. Williamson, D. M., Bejar, I. I., and Hone, A. (1999). ‘Mental Model’ comparison of computerized and human scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 158-184.